Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1270 (RAJ)

State Bank of India v. Shankar Lal Pandya

2015-07-09

AJIT SINGH, SUNIL AMBWANI

body2015
JUDGMENT 1. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. The delay in filing the Special Appeal has been explained on the ground that one other petition filed by the petitioner/respondent for promotion was allowed. The Bank, considering the fact that the respondent had superannuated in the year 1998 and after extensions in service, was finally relieved on 31.05.2001, and has been paid all the retiral benefits and made entitled to pension, the Special Appeal was not necessary to be filed. The respondent, however, made a claim for promotional benefits, on which the matter was re-examined, and this Special Appeal has been preferred. 3. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant-Bank, and perusing the counter affidavit, filed to the application for condonation of delay, we find that the cause shown for delay is good and sufficient. The delay in filing the Special Appeal is, accordingly, condoned. The application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is allowed. 4. The writ petition arose out of a penalty order on charges of misconduct, against which an appeal and review petition were dismissed by the Bank, confirming punishment of the reduction of pay. Learned Single Judge found that a disagreement was recorded by the Disciplinary Authority to the findings of the Enquiry Officer; that despite the specific plea setup by the petitioner in Ground-D of the memo of writ petition, and in the additional affidavit, to substantiate the argument, from the note of the Disciplinary Authority, dated 04.10.1990, that the Disciplinary Authority despite observing that though it concurred with the finding recorded by the Enquiring Authority in respect of Charge No. 1(a)(e) to (i) and a part of Charge No. 2, it did not agree with the finding of the Enquiry Officer regarding Charge No. 1(b)(c) and (d) and a part of Charge No. 2, a notice of disagreement was not given to the petitioner. 5. Learned Single Judge found that having disagreed with the Enquiry Officer in parts, a notice of disagreement should have been given to the delinquent officer. The penalty order thus could not be sustained. Having recorded the findings, learned Single Judge, instead of remanding the matter with directions to the Disciplinary Authority to restart the departmental proceedings, from the stage of disagreement with part of the findings of the Enquiry Officer, allowed the writ petition in totality. The penalty order thus could not be sustained. Having recorded the findings, learned Single Judge, instead of remanding the matter with directions to the Disciplinary Authority to restart the departmental proceedings, from the stage of disagreement with part of the findings of the Enquiry Officer, allowed the writ petition in totality. He quashed the charge-sheet, penalty order, appellate order, and the order, by which the review petition was dismissed, and rested the matter without making any consequential orders. 6. In our opinion, the operative portion of para 11 of the impugned judgment, is not in agreement with the findings recorded by learned Single Judge. Once a finding was recorded that on the disagreement with the part of the enquiry report in respect of some of the charges, a notice of disagreement should have been given, the matter should have been remanded to the Disciplinary Authority to complete the proceedings. 7. We are informed that the respondent had attained the age of superannuation in the year 1998. He was given extensions in service, and was finally relieved on 31.05.2001, after which he has been paid the entire retiral benefits, including Gratuity, Provident Fund, and has been made entitled to pension, 8. An objection is taken that no object will be served by remand, to be restarted from the stage of notice of disagreement, inasmuch as there is no provision in the Service Rules for continuing with the disciplinary enquiry, after superannuation. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the State Bank of India has pointed out to Clause 19(3) of the State Bank of India Officers (Determination of Terms And Conditions of Service) Order, 1979 (in short, the Order of 1979'), made under Section 43(1) of the State Bank of India Act, 1955, which provides the disciplinary proceedings to continue even after attaining the age of superannuation, at the discretion of the Managing Director. Sub-clause (3) of Clause 19 of the Order of 1979, provides as follows:- "19(1).......... (2)......... Sub-clause (3) of Clause 19 of the Order of 1979, provides as follows:- "19(1).......... (2)......... (3) In case disciplinary proceedings under the relevant rules of service have been initiated against an officer before he ceases to be in the Bank's service by the operation of, or by virtue of, any of the said rules or the provisions of this order, the disciplinary proceedings may, at the discretion of the Managing Director, be continued and concluded by the authority by which the proceedings were initiated in the manner provided for in the said rules as if the officer continues to be in service, so however, that he shall be deemed to be in service only for the purpose of the continuance and conclusion of such proceedings." 10. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Bank, that since the respondent has superannuated, and has been paid all the retiral dues, the Bank had decided not to file Special Appeal. The decision had to be revised on the representations made by the respondent claiming salary in the promotional pay scale taking advantage of the impugned judgment, by which the charge-sheet, penalty order and appellate orders were set aside, and on which the present appeal has been preferred. 11. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent states that this Court does not interfere with the impugned judgment, the respondent will not pursue the matter with regard financial benefits on promotions, claimed by him in consequence of setting aside the order of penalty. 12. In view of the aforesaid submissions, we are of the view that no purpose will be achieved in remanding the matter back to the Disciplinary Authority, to be started afresh, from the stage of notice of disagreement. The charge-sheet was given in the year 1987, and that the penalty order was passed in the year 1990. The respondent was relieved on 31.05.2001, after granting extension of service beyond the age of superannuation, and has received all the service benefits. 13. The charge-sheet was given in the year 1987, and that the penalty order was passed in the year 1990. The respondent was relieved on 31.05.2001, after granting extension of service beyond the age of superannuation, and has received all the service benefits. 13. In the special facts and circumstances of the case, we set aside the operative portion of the judgment of learned Single Judge, dated 22.04.2014, and in order to give quietus to the matter, direct that no further enquiry will be made against the respondent on the charges in question, and that, as agreed, the respondent will not make claim of any promotion, or any further dues, over and above to which he has been paid, as a consequence of the impugned judgment. 14. The Special Appeal is disposed of accordingly.Special appeal dismissed of as above. *******