Kerala High Court
The General Manager vs P.Vijayaraghavan on 20 February, 2024
Author: Anu Sivaraman
Bench: Anu Sivaraman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 1ST PHALGUNA, 1945
WA NO.1296 OF 2023
JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 20351/2011 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
DATED 23.5.2023
------------------
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 :-
1 THE GENERAL MANAGER,
STATE BANK OF INDIA, LOCAL HEAD OFFICE,
ROTARY JUNCTION, POOJAPPURA, TRIVANDRUM,
PIN - 695 024
2 THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER (HR),
HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, STATE BANK OF INDIA,
LOCAL HEAD OFFICE, ROTARY JUNCTION, POOJAPPURA,
TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695 024
BY ADVS.
P.GOPAL
GEORGE THOMAS (MEVADA)(SR.)(G-120)
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER :-
P.VIJAYARAGHAVAN,
STATE BANK OF INDIA,
RETAIL ASSETS SMALL & MEDIUM ENTERPRISES,
CITY CREDIT CENTRE (RASMECCC),
TRICHUR, PIN - 680 001.
BY ADV R.K.MURALEEDHARAN
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON
07.02.2024, THE COURT ON 20.02.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A. No.1296 of 2023
-: 2 :-
ANU SIVARAMAN, J. & C. PRATHEEP KUMAR, J.
------------------------------------------------------------------
W.A. No.1296 of 2023
---------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 20th day of February, 2024
JUDGMENT
Anu Sivaraman, J.
This appeal is preferred by the employer-bank being
aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge which
directed the modification of Ext.R2(a) order to be in conformity
with Rule 67(f) of the State Bank of India Officers Service Rules,
1992 (hereinafter referred to 'the Rules').
2. We have heard the learned Senior Counsel for the
appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent,
who was the writ petitioner.
3. The facts necessary for the consideration of the issue
are as follows :- The respondent/writ petitioner was working as
Branch Manager of the State Bank of India at Kattappana. A
major penalty proceedings were initiated and a penalty of
reduction of basic pay by five stages for one year was imposed
under Rule 67(f) of the Rules. Ext.P1 order also illustrated the
manner in which the penalty was to be worked out. Aggrieved by
the manner in which the reduction was sought to be restored,
that is; by restoring one stage in every year, the respondent filed
a representation, which was rejected by Ext.P3 order dated
04.09.2002. He, thereafter, preferred representations in the
grievance redressal system and sent several reminders, but no
action was taken thereon. He, therefore, approached this Court
with the following prayers :-
"(a) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ
order or direction quashing Ext.P1 order to the extent of
the manner in which penalty is ordered to be implemented
under Rule 67(f) of SBI Officers Service Rules and Ext.P3
order issued by the 2nd respondent. And
(b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate order
or direction directing the respondents to restore the basic
pay as illustrated in Ext.P7 based on Ext.P6 memo along
with the illustration issued by the Chief General Manager
dated 13.04.2000 and declare the consequential
entitlement of the petitioner. Or in the alternative
(c) Direct the respondents to consider and pass orders on
Ext.P8 representation on merits submitted by the
petitioner based on Ext.P6 memo and illustration by the
Chief General Manager within a time frame to be fixed by
this Hon'ble Court."
4. Considering the contentions advanced on either side,
the learned Single Judge held that the provisions of Rule 67(f)
were misinterpreted by the disciplinary authority and that the
punishment could have been imposed only strictly in accordance
with Rule 67(f). The respondents were, therefore, directed to
comply with the order of this Court by strictly applying Rule 67(f)
to any other orders passed against the writ petitioner after
institution of the writ petition.
5. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
appellants contends that the reasoning of the learned Single
Judge was erroneous and that since the punishment imposed was
reduction of pay by five stages for one year and since the
punishment was cumulative in effect, the barred increments
would be restored only one at a time. Reliance is placed on the
judgments of the Apex Court in Punjab State Electricity Board
v. Raj Kumar Goel [2015 KHC 4106] as also in Kulwant Singh
Gill v. State of Punjab [1991 KHC 1065].
6. A counter affidavit has been placed on record by the
respondents stating that since the punishment of reduction of
basic pay by five stages was imposed on the respondent herein
with cumulative effect, he would be entitled to restoration of the
five stages reduced only at the rate of one stage in a year and
therefore there was no error in the manner in which the effect of
the punishment was calculated. The specific contention in the
counter affidavit was that if the disciplinary authority directs that
the officer would not earn increments during the period of
punishment and on expiry of the period of punishment, the
punishment will have the effect of postponing his future
increments, then, on the expiry of the punishment period,
withheld increments during the period of reduction will be
released and thereafter the regular annual increments will
continue. In effect, it is contended that there will be cumulative
postponement of the number of stages reduced and the pay of the
employee will be restored to the stage in the time scale from
which it was reduced. Exts.R2(c) to R2(e) were also produced
and relied on in support of the said contention. It is further
stated in paragraphs 10 to 12 in the counter affidavit as follows :-
"10. It is respectfully submitted that the bank has initiated
another disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner while he was
working as Manager (Concurrent Audit) at Kannur Branch for
committing serious irregularities/lapses acting in violation of Rule
50(4), 59(v), 60(2) and 6192) of SBIOSR, 1992 and imposed
punishment of removal from service on the petitioner under Rule 67(i)
of SBIOSR, 1992 by order dated 30.3.2012.
11. The averments in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the reply
affidavit that the penalty imposed under Rule 67(f) of SBIOSR, 1992
cannot be stretched to more than one year are not correct and are
denied. The reduction of basic pay of petitioner by five stages in
Ext.R2(a) order is reduction of five increments of the petitioner from
the date of Ext.R2(a) order. Ext.R2(a) order of punishment is not
imposed on the petitioner for five years or extended as contended by
the petitioner.
12. The averments in paragraph 5 of the reply affidavit are
incorrect. The amounts towards basic pay claimed by the petitioner
with effect from 1.11.2002, 1.10.2003, 1.10.2007 are incorrect. The
petitioner is not entitled to stagnation increment during the period of
punishment undergone by him."
7. Considering the contentions advanced, we find that
Rule 67(f) of the SBI Officers Service Rules, 1992 provides only
for reduction in basic pay by five stages for a period of one year.
Therefore, what is reduced is the basic pay of the incumbent by
five stages from the pay that he draws as on the date of
imposition of the penalty. There is no separate punishment of
bar of increments inflicted on the employee. Therefore, the
reduction by five stages is confined to a period of one year. After
the period of punishment, the order specifically says that the five
stages will be cumulatively restored. If that be so, the calculation
given in the order of punishment as well as in the orders
rejecting the request made by the respondent cannot be correct.
The calculation relied on by the appellants would show that five
stages which are reduced by the order of punishment is restored
only stage by stage, over a period of five years and not
cumulatively after the period of one year which is the term for
which the punishment has been imposed.
8. The judgments relied on by the learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the appellants are authority on the point that
where increment is barred cumulatively, the increment which the
employee would have earned during the relevant period is
forfeited for ever and is not restored. However, we notice that in
the instant case, the punishment imposed is not barring of
increments, but lowering of pay by five stages, which the order
itself specifically says, will be restored cumulatively.
9. In the above view of the matter and in the light of the
fact that the punishment of reduction of pay by five stages was
imposed specifically only for one year, we are unable to accept
the contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the
appellants that the reduced stages could have been restored only
one stage at a time, that is, over the period of five years. We are
in agreement with the view expressed by the learned Single
Judge that the punishment being only reduction of pay by five
stages for one year, the pay would have to be restored after the
period of punishment was over to the stage at which it stood
before the punishment was inflicted.
In the above view of the matter, we are of the opinion
that there is no merit in the writ appeal. The grounds raised in
the writ appeal is devoid of merits and the same is, accordingly,
dismissed.
Sd/-
ANU SIVARAMAN
JUDGE
Sd/-
C. PRATHEEP KUMAR
JUDGE
Jvt/13.2.2024
