[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sunil Kumar Janoriya(Dead)Through Lrs ... vs State Bank Of India on 25 February, 2026
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:16621
1 WPS-3356-2004
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
ON THE 25th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
WRIT PET. (SERVICE) No. 3356 of 2004
SUNIL KUMAR JANORIYA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS MANJU
JANORIA AND OTHERS
Versus
STATE BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Vipin Yadav - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Anuj Agarwal - Advocate for the respondents.
ORDER
This is a petition by the original petitioner while praying for the
following reliefs:
"i) To issue a writ in the nature of certiorari order dated
27/11/2003 and 17/3/2004 may kindly be quashed.
ii) To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus
respondents may kindly be directed to reinstate the
petitioner with all consequential benefits.
iii) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may
deems fit and proper may kindly be granted to the
petitioners, including the cost of litigation.
7.4 To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus
respondents may kindly be directed to pay the full
pension of the petitioner along with arrears and
interest."
2. The facts of the case, in short, are that the original petitioner was
initially appointed on 01.09.1982 to the post of Clerk-cum-Typist at the
Local Head Office, Public Relation Department, State Bank of India, Bhopal.
Subsequently, his designation was changed to Assistant. Vide an order dated
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:16621
2 WPS-3356-2004
17.02.2001 (Annexure P/1), the original petitioner was promoted to the post
of Senior Assistant. However, despite the promotion order, he was not
relieved to assume his promotional post. When the original petitioner
approached the Staff Cell in charge, Shri B.P. Tonpe with regard to relieving,
he misbehaved with the original petitioner and further alleged that the
original petitioner had slapped him. Pursuant to the said allegation, a charge-
sheet (Annexure P/2) was issued to the original petitioner. The original
petitioner submitted a reply (Annexure P/3) denying the allegations levelled
against him. During the course of inquiry, the original petitioner demanded
certain documents for the purpose of effective cross-examination of the
witnesses. However, the said documents were not given to him. The original
petitioner was not given any opportunity of hearing to cross-examine the
witnesses, and the inquiry proceedings were closed. A copy of the inquiry
report is filed as Annexure P/5. On the basis of the inquiry report, the
disciplinary authority passed an order dated 27.11.2003 dismissing the
original petitioner from service. The original petitioner preferred an appeal
against the said order before respondent No.3. Vide an order dated
17.03.2004 (Annexure P/7), the Appellate Authority converted the order of
punishment of dismissal into removal from service. Being aggrieved by the
orders dated 27.11.2003 and 17.03.2004, this petition is filed.
3. Counsel for the petitioner contended that it is a case where the
inquiry report which is available in Annexure P/5, reveals that the same was
reduced into writing by the Inquiry Officer without even adverting to the
rival stand. The inquiry report, on the face of it, reflects that the same has
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:16621
3 WPS-3356-2004
been prepared in a high-handed manner. The Inquiry Officer, who was
required to give a finding in support of conclusion failed to give any finding.
The inquiry report is based on conjecture and surmises as well as
misconceived notions; therefore, on the basis of said inquiry report, no order
could have been passed. To the misfortune of the petitioner, the said inquiry
report was relied upon by the disciplinary authority, and the disciplinary
authority also acted in a mechanical manner while passing the impugned
order of dismissal. The order passed by the disciplinary authority has been
converted into an order of removal from service by the Appellate Authority.
It is contended by the counsel that the Appellate Authority converted the
order of dismissal into removal, taking into consideration the fact that the
original employee was not denuded of his right as regards the pension, as the
employee had completed qualifying service of 20 years. It is contended by
the counsel that the aforesaid decision of the Appellate Authority is based on
Article 6(B) of the Bipartite Agreement dated 10.04.2002 and therefore, in
view of the aforesaid, pensionary benefits could not have been declined to
the original petitioner. It is contended by counsel for the petitioners that there
exists no order on record that declines the extension of said benefit to the
original petitioner. It is contended by the counsel that in view of the decision
of the Apex Court in the case of Anil Kumar v. Presiding Officer and others
reported in 1985 (3) SCC 378, if the Inquiry Officer acts in a manner which
is contrary to the settled principle of service jurisprudence, the entire process
gets vitiated and based on such vitiated order, there cannot be any order of
imposition of penalty. Counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:16621
4 WPS-3356-2004
original petitioners' prayer is confined only to the extension of benefit of
pension and all other terminal dues, which are admissible despite an order of
removal.
4. Per contra, counsel for the respondents has opposed the prayer and
submitted that the petition is liable to be dismissed. It is a case where a
detailed inquiry report was reduced into writing, the stand of the department,
as well as the original petitioner was dealt with by the Inquiry Officer
elaborately, which is evident from the inquiry report, which runs into as
many as 14 pages. It is contended by the counsel that the Inquiry Officer has
devoted more than 9 pages of the inquiry report while arriving at the finding
regarding contentions of the parties; therefore, the contention of the original
petitioner is ill-founded that the Inquiry Officer submitted the inquiry report
without considering the rival stand of the parties. It is the further contention
of the counsel that the inquiry report also deals with the documentary
evidence as well as oral evidence adduced by the parties and thereafter, came
to a conclusion that the petitioner, slapped his colleague in the state of heat
of impulse and therefore, the said conduct was unbecoming of an employee
and accordingly, the order does not require any interference. It is further
contended by the counsel that the regulations have been brought on record
and as per Rule 22(d), an employee is entitled for pension only upon
completion of 25 years. The original petitioner cannot claim a pension on the
ground that he completed 20 years of qualifying service. As even upon
completion of 20 years, the pension can be claimed by the employee
concerned while submitting an application for voluntary retirement. Rule
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:16621
5 WPS-3356-2004
22(i)(c) and Rule 22(i)(a) have been dealt with by the Apex Court in the case
o f Assistant General Manager State Bank of India and Ors. v. Radhey
Shyam Pandey reported in (2020) 6 SCC 438. It is the further contention of
the counsel for the respondents that in the case in hand, there was no request
in writing by the original petitioner for voluntary retirement and therefore,
Rule 22(1)(c) is not applicable. Counsel for the respondent also submits that
interference with the disciplinary action is impermissible as laid down by the
Apex Court in a catena of decisions. Counsel in support of his contention,
has placed reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in the cases of Pravin
Kumar v. Union of India and others passed in Civil Appeal No.6270/2012
vide order dated 10.09.2020 , order dated 14.06.2023 passed by this Court in
W.P. No.4753/2000 (S.C. Jain v. M.P. Electricity Board and
another), Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) and others v. Ajai
Kumar Srivastava reported in (2021) 2 SCC 612 , judgment dated 08.08.2024
passed in Civil Appeal No.8546-8549/2024 by the Apex Court in the case of
State of Rajasthan and others v. Bhupendra Singh , Union of India and
Others v. Subrata Nath reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1617, S. Janaki
Iyer v. Union of India and others reported in (2025) 8 SCC 696 , State Bank
of India and others v. Bidyut Kumar Mitra and others reported in (2011) 2
SCC 316, Syndicate Bank and others v. Venkatesh Gururao Kurati reported
in (2006) 3 SCC 150, U.P. State Textile Corpn. Ltd. v. P.C. Chaturvedi and
others reported in (2005) 8 SCC 211, State of U.P. and others v. Ramesh
Chandra Mangalik reported in (2002) 3 SCC 443.
5. No other point is argued or pressed by counsel for the parties.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:16621
6 WPS-3356-2004
6. Heard the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and
perused the record.
7. A perusal of the record reflects that originally, the penalty of
dismissal from service was imposed against the original petitioner. However,
the Appellate Authority modified the punishment and converted it into
removal from service. The Appellate Authority contains a categorical finding
that the punishment was imposed in light of the provisions of Article 6(B) of
the Bipartite Settlement. It is relevant to mention here that the original
petitioner in the writ petition has already expired.
8. Counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that the prayer is
confined only to the extent of extension of benefit of pension and all other
terminal dues, which are admissible despite an order of removal.
9. Therefore, the matter stands in a narrow compass as the appellate
order was passed considering Article 6(B) of the Bipartite Settlement, and
the appellate order has not been challenged by the employer and thus,
attained finality. It is germane to refer to Article 6(B) of the said settlement
which reads as under:
"6. An employee found guilty of gross misconduct may:
(a) xxxx xxxx xxxx
(b) be removed from service with superannuation
benefits i.e. Pension and/or Provident Fund and Gratuity
as would be due otherwise under the Rules or
Regulations prevailing at the relevant time and without
disqualification from future employment."
10. A perusal of the aforesaid reflects that once the punishment of
removal from service is passed against any employee, he will be entitled to
superannuation benefits like pension, provident fund, and gratuity in
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:16621
7 WPS-3356-2004
accordance with the prevalent rules. The Appellate Authority invoked the
provisions of Article 6(B) of the Bipartite Settlement and modified the
punishment of the original petitioner from dismissal to one of removal from
service. The appellate order has not been challenged by employer and
attained finality. Therefore, in the considered view of this Court, the
petitioners, in light of Article 6(B) of the Bipartite Settlement, are entitled
for the retiral benefits.
11. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to forthwith extend the
benefit of pension and pay all other admissible dues to the petitioners, which
are admissible to them despite the order of removal as per Article 6(B) of the
Bipartite Settlement.
12. The entire dues be paid within a period of 60 days from the date of
production of certified copy of the order.
13. With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI)
JUDGE
vc
