The short facts giving rise to the present petition are that the respondent while posted as a Branch Manager at Marufganj Branch and at various other branches, was found to have committed various lapses, in respect of which he was suspended on 14.06.1993 in terms of Rule 50A(i)(a) of SBIOSR, 1992. On 09.05.2003, the Division Bench stayed the implementation of the order dated 26.03.2003 passed by the Single Bench, however finally dismissed the said LPA vide order dated 22.04.2010. In the result, we allow this appeal and set aside the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.378 of 2003. Ordered accordingly.”
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/illegality-of-arrest-under-pmla/
In view of the above order passed by this Court, the Appointing Authority issued a show-cause notice to the respondent on 06.02.2014, to which the respondent submitted his response on 10.02.2014.
The Single Bench of the High Court vide the order dated 22.08.2016 allowed the said petition, and quashed and set aside the order of dismissal passed by the Appellant-Bank and directed the Appellant-Bank to pay all the consequential benefits i.e., arrears of salary and retiral benefits within 3 months thereof.
He further submitted in the said order the Supreme Court had set aside the order of Division Bench, however had agreed with the view expressed by the Single Bench that as per the settled legal principle, the person who hears the matter is required to pass an order. Under the circumstances, the Appointing Authority was required to take steps either to extend the service of the respondent in terms of Rule 19(1), or to continue the disciplinary proceedings, even after the superannuation of the respondent under Rule 19(3) of the Rules, however the Appellant- Bank did not take recourse to any of the said rules.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/criminal/conviction-upheld-in-high-court-in-a-case-of-deadly-assault/
Provided that the competent authority may, at its discretion, extend the period of service of an officer who has attained the age of fifty-eight years or bas completed thirty years’ service or thirty years’ pensionable service as the case may be, should such extension be deemed desirable in the interest of the Bank, so however, that the service rendered by the concerned officer beyond 58 years of age except to the extent of the period of leave due at that time will not count for purpose of pension. 19.(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 I the operation of, or by virtue of, any of the said rules or the provisions of these rules, the disciplinary proceedings m’ay, 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. As per the Rule 19(3), in case the 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 operation of, or by virtue of any of the rules, the disciplinary proceedings may at the discretion of Managing Director be continued and concluded, as if the officer had continued to be in service.
Thus, the order of Single Bench setting aside the order of dismissal passed by the Appointing Authority having been stayed by the Division Bench, the respondent could not be deemed to have continued in service, and also when he had attained the age of superannuation on 30.11.2009. However, in the instant case, there was no question of Managing Director exercising such discretion under Rule 19(3) as the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the respondent had already culminated into his dismissal as per the order dated 11.08.1999 passed by the Appointing Authority.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/criminal/statutory-right-of-default-bail-in-incomplete-chargesheet/
Since all the contentions were kept open by this Court while allowing the appeal filed by the Appellant-Bank, as such no affirmative action was expected from the Appellant- Bank, as sought to be submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent. The impugned order of the High Court setting aside the said order of dismissal being under misconception of facts and law deserves to be quashed and set aside.
Case Title: THE STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. KAMAL KISHORE PRASAD (2023 INSC 21)
Case Number: C.A. No.-000175-000175 / 2023
