Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 275 (JHR)

State Bank Of India v. Navin Kumar Sinha

2020-02-11

DEEPAK ROSHAN, H.C.MISHRA

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant Bank and learned counsel for the writ petitioner respondent No.1. 2. The appellant Bank is aggrieved by the impugned Judgment dated 6.9.2016, passed by the Writ Court in W.P.(S) No.3446 of 2014, whereby the writ application filed by the respondent writ petitioner, challenging the punishment order dated 7.3.2012 of his dismissal from service of the appellant Bank, which was upheld up to the Reviewing Authority, has been allowed, setting aside the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority and the Reviewing Authority. 3. Sans unnecessary details, the necessary facts of this case are that the writ petitioner initially entered in the service of the State Bank of India on 8.6.1973 as a Clerk Typist. He was given due promotions from time to time, and on completion of 30 years of service, he was made to superannuate in the year 2003, as per the State Bank of India Officers'' (Determination of Terms and Conditions of Service) Order, 1979. Vide order dated 5.08.2003 issued by the competent authority, the writ petitioner was given the extension of service from 27.12.2003 to 1.10.2010, subject to the usual terms and conditions. It is the case of the appellant Bank that according to the applicable service rules, i.e. the State Bank of India Officers'' Service Rules, 1992, as amended from time to time, the age of superannuation of the officers of the Bank was extended to 60 years, which admittedly the writ petitioner was going to complete on 30.10.2012, and according to the learned counsel for appellant Bank, the writ petitioner continued in service of the Bank, even after 1.10.2010, till the termination of his service on 7.3.2012. 4. The respondent writ petitioner was subjected to a departmental proceeding for some alleged misconducts committed during his postings from 19.01.2006 to 29.10.2008 and again from 23.01.2009 to 22.08.2009. The memo of charges have neither been discussed in the impugned Judgment passed by the Writ Court, nor are very relevant for the purpose of this Court, in view of question of law involved in the case. The admitted position is that the departmental proceeding was initiated vide letter dated 18.03.2011, containing the articles of charges, and after completion of the departmental proceeding, the punishment of dismissal from service was imposed upon the writ petitioner on 7.03.2012 by the Disciplinary Authority. The admitted position is that the departmental proceeding was initiated vide letter dated 18.03.2011, containing the articles of charges, and after completion of the departmental proceeding, the punishment of dismissal from service was imposed upon the writ petitioner on 7.03.2012 by the Disciplinary Authority. The Appellate Authority rejected the appeal of the respondent writ petitioner vide order dated 29.10.2012, whereas the Reviewing Authority rejected the review petition of the petitioner vide order dated 16.01.2014. 5. The Honble Single Judge, while adjudicating the writ application has held that on completion of 30 years of service in the year 2003, the services of the respondent writ petitioner was extended till 1.10.2010, and there was no order or any material on record to show that the services of the writ petitioner was ever extended after 1.10.2010, on which date the writ petitioner was deemed to have been superannuated from service. The Writ Court has also held that no Rules had been brought to the knowledge of the Court showing the effect of the departmental proceeding after retirement. Accordingly, the order of dismissal passed by the Disciplinary Authority, the order of the Appellate Authority as well as the order of the Reviewing Authority, were quashed on the sole ground that no departmental proceeding could be initiated after the superannuation of the writ petitioner on 1.10.2010. 6. The Honble Single Judge has also taken one another ground that since the appellant Bank had not suffered any monetary loss due to the alleged misconduct committed by the writ petitioner, the punishment of dismissal from service was harsh, and shockingly disproportionate to the proved misconduct, so as to prick the conscience of the Court. Since the articles of charges have not been discussed in the impugned Judgment, there appears to have no basis for coming to that conclusion. 7. We accordingly, without entering into this aspect, keep ourselves confined to the first ground, i.e., the disciplinary proceeding could not have been initiated after the superannuation of the petitioner. 8. Since the articles of charges have not been discussed in the impugned Judgment, there appears to have no basis for coming to that conclusion. 7. We accordingly, without entering into this aspect, keep ourselves confined to the first ground, i.e., the disciplinary proceeding could not have been initiated after the superannuation of the petitioner. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant Bank has submitted that the impugned Judgment passed by the Honble Single Judge cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, inasmuch as, the service of the respondent writ petitioner was extended after 1.10.2010 up till the completion of 60 years of age of the writ petitioner, as per Rule 19(1) of the State Bank of India Officers Services Rules, 1992 , as amended from time to time, which was going to complete on 30.10.2012. In support of this submission, learned counsel for the appellant Bank also placed reliance upon an application submitted by the respondent himself, in which, he had stated that he was to superannuate on 30.10.2012. Learned counsel for the appellant Bank accordingly, submitted that the Hon''ble Single Judge has given a wrong finding that the departmental proceeding was initiated and the punishment order was passed, after the superannuation of the writ petitioner on 1.10.2010, and accordingly, the impugned Judgement passed by the Writ Court cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent writ petitioner on the other hand has opposed the prayer and has submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned Judgment passed by the Writ Court, inasmuch as, all the actions in the departmental proceedings had been taken after the superannuation of the respondent writ petitioner, which were not permissible in law. 10. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides, we find that the submission of learned counsel for the appellant Bank that the respondent writ petitioner on his own saying superannuated on 30.10.2012, is neither convincing nor acceptable to us. An employee cannot be allowed to continue in service after attaining the age of superannuation on the basis of his own submission, that he is actually to superannuate on a particular date, which is beyond the actual date of superannuation. The superannuation of an employee is to take place in accordance with the extant service Rules and law governing the service conditions. 11. The superannuation of an employee is to take place in accordance with the extant service Rules and law governing the service conditions. 11. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant Bank that as per the Rule 19.(1) of the State Bank of India Officers Service Rules, 1992, the respondent writ petitioner was to superannuate on completion of 60 years of age, is again, not in consonance with the Rules. The relevant portion of Rule 19.(1) of the aforesaid Rules reads as follows:- ''19.(1) An officer shall retire from the service of the Bank on attaining the age of sixty years or upon the completion of thirty years service or thirty years pensionable service, if he is a member of the Pension Fund, whichever occurs first.'' A bare perusal of the Rule clearly shows that if an officer of the State Bank of India, completes thirty years of service prior to attaining the age of 60 years, he is to superannuate from service, on completion of thirty years of service, irrespective of the fact that he has not attained the age of 60 years. 12. In the case of the writ petitioner, he was made to superannuate on the date of completion of 30 years of service in the year 2003 itself, and he was again given an extension of service from 27.12.2003 to 1.10.2010. As such, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that even in case of extension of service given to the respondent writ petitioner beyond the period of 30 years of service, he was to continue in service till he attained the age of 60 years. No other Rule has been brought on record, or to the notice of this Court to show that even after completion of 30 years of service, the officer of the Bank shall continue in service, till he attains the age of 60 years. Rule 19(1) of the State Bank of India Officers Service Rules, 1992, is absolutely clear, without any ambiguity, wherein there is no scope of accepting the submission of learned counsel for the appellant Bank. 13. Thus, the only conclusion that can be drawn in the present case, is that the writ petitioner could not have been allowed to continue in service after 1.10.2010, in absence of any further extension of service, which admittedly was not done in the present case. 13. Thus, the only conclusion that can be drawn in the present case, is that the writ petitioner could not have been allowed to continue in service after 1.10.2010, in absence of any further extension of service, which admittedly was not done in the present case. In that view of the matter, we find that the departmental proceeding had been initiated and the punishment order was passed after the superannuation of the petitioner on 1.10.2010, as the initiation of the departmental proceeding was done on 18.03.2011, and the punishment order was passed by the Disciplinary Authority on 7.03.2012, i.e., after the date of superannuation, which was not permissible in the eyes of law, in absence of any disciplinary Rules. Admittedly, no such Rules were brought to the notice of the Writ Court, or to the notice of this Court. 14. As such, we find no illegality in the impugned Judgment dated 6.9.2016, passed by the Writ Court in W.P.(S) No.3446 of 2014, holding that the departmental proceeding could not have been initiated and continued after the superannuation of the respondent writ petitioner, and allowing the writ application, quashing the order of dismissal from service passed by the Disciplinary Authority, as well as the orders of the Appellate and the Reviewing Authorities, worth any interference in exercise of the LPA jurisdiction. 15. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in this Letters Patent Appeal, which is accordingly, dismissed.