CASE TITLE:
State Bank of India & Ors. v. Kamal Kishore Prasad.
DATE OF ORDER:
9 January 2023.
JUDGE(S):
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Krishna Murari, Bela M. Trivedi.
SUBJECT:
In the present case, the Court is dealing with an Appeal against judgment and order of High Court dismissing Appellant-Bank's appeal and confirming order of Single Bench.
BRIEF FACTS:
In the present case, the respondent was found to have committed various lapses when he was posted as a Branch Manager at Marufganj Branch and at various other branches. Hence, he was suspended on 14 June 1993 under Rule 50(i)(a) of SBIOSR, 1992.
The Inquiry Authority submitted a report on the departmental proceedings on 9 March 1998 where some of the allegations were found to be proved whereas some were found to be partly proved.
The Disciplinary Authority agreed on some of the findings which were recorded by the Inquiry Authority and hence the respondent was called upon to make his submissions on the same. Thereafter the matter was sent to the Appointing Authority. They imposed the penalty of “Dismissal from Service” as per order dated 11 September 1999.
Thereby, the respondent filed a Writ Petition before the High Court which was allowed by the Single Bench by an order dated 26 March 2003. The Appellant Bank was aggrieved by this order and thereafter filed an LPA.
On 9 May 2003, the Division Bench stayed the above order and dismissed the LPA.
The respondent attained the age of superannuation on 30 November 2009.
The Appellant Bank filed an SLP (C) challenging the order dated 22 April 2010 that was passed by the Division Bench. This was allowed by the present Court on 25 November 2013.
A show-cause notice was issued to the respondent by the Appointing Authority on 6 February 2014. The respondent gave his response on 10 February 2014.
The Appointing Authority granted personal hearing to the respondent on 14 February 2014. Thereafter, they passed an order on 17 February 2014 imposing the penalty of “Dismissal from Service” upon the respondent in terms of Rule 67(J) of SBISOR by an order dated 11 August 1999. He treated his period of suspension as not on duty.
The respondent was aggrieved by the order which was passed by Appointing Authority and hence, he filed a Departmental Appeal before the Appellate Authority on 24 February 2014 which was thereafter dismissed on 9 August 2014.
The respondent again approached the High Court and this was allowed by the Single Bench by an order dated 22 August 2016. The order of dismissal passed by the Appellant Bank was quashed and set aside. The Appellant Bank was directed to pay all the consequential benefits i.e, arrears of salary and benefits of retirement within 3 months thereof.
The aggrieved appellant bank filed LPA but that was dismissed by the Division Bench with an impugned order dated 1 February 2018.
QUESTIONS RAISED:
Whether the order passed by the Single Bench was justified or arbitrary in the eyes of law?
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANT:
The petitioner’s counsel submitted that the High Court had committed gross error in confirming the order which was passed by the Single Bench. It also submitted that the High Court has misinterpreted the Rule 19(1) and 19(3) of the SBIOSR, 1992.
The learned counsel observed that this Court allowed the appeal filed by the Appellant Bank in the first round of litigation and thereafter set aside the order passed by the Division Bench.
The petitioner counsel concluded that the order was wrongly set aside by the Single Bench and by the Division Bench.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT:
The respondent submitted that they expected the Appellant Bank to take an affirmative action in view of the order that was passed by the Supreme Court on 25 November 2013.
The respondent counsel also spoke that he had already attained the age of superannuation while the proceeding was pending before the High Court.
In this case, the respondent's counsel argued that the Appellant-Bank was required to take an affirmative action in light of the Supreme Court's order. The Supreme Court had set aside the order of the Division Bench, but had agreed that the person who hears the matter must pass an order. The counsel argued that the Supreme Court granted the liberty to the Appointing Authority to take appropriate action in accordance with law since the respondent had attained the age of superannuation. The counsel also argued that the Appointing Authority was required to extend the respondent's service in terms of Rule 19(1), or to continue the disciplinary proceedings even after the respondent's superannuation in accordance with Rule 19(3) of the Rules, but the Appellant-Bank failed to take either of these steps. Furthermore, the counsel argued that the Appointing Authority had to exercise their discretion to continue with the disciplinary proceedings as an affirmative action, which they had failed to do, and instead passed an order of dismissal with retrospective effect which was not legally permissible.
ANALYSIS OF THE COURT:
In essence, Rule 19(1) of the Rules allows an officer to retire from the bank on attaining the age of 58 years or upon the completion of 30 years' service or 30 years' of pensionable service, whichever occurs first. However, if any disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against the officer before he retires, the Managing Director has the discretion to continue and conclude the proceedings as if the officer had continued to be in service. The officer will only be deemed to be in service for the purpose of the continuance and conclusion of the proceedings.
In this case, the respondent's reliance on Rule 19(3) of the Rules was misplaced because the disciplinary proceedings against the respondent had already been concluded with his dismissal by the Appointing Authority. The dismissal was later set aside by a Single Bench and the order remained stayed pending an appeal filed by the Bank, which was eventually dismissed by the Division Bench. However, the order was later set aside by the Court, observing that the person who hears the matter has to decide it. Therefore, Rule 19(3) was not applicable in this case.
The Appointing Authority was directed by the Court to hear the respondent and pass an appropriate order. After hearing the respondent, the Appointing Authority imposed the penalty of dismissal from service. The Court had kept all the contentions of all parties open, so no further action was expected from the Bank. The High Court set aside this order of dismissal, but this was done under a misconception of facts and law, and so the Court quashed and set aside the High Court's decision.
Hence, the impugned order passed by the Division Bench confirming the order passed by the Single Bench was set aside and the current appeal was allowed.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the present appeal is allowed and the impugned order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna in LPA No. 2035 of 2016 is set aside. The Appointing Authority's order of dismissal passed in accordance with the direction of the Supreme Court is upheld.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
