Madras High Court
State Bank Of India vs C.R.L.Narasimhan on 20 March, 2023
W.A.Nos.1000 and 1001 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 20/3/2023
CORAM
THE Hon'ble Mr.Justice D.KRISHNAKUMAR
and
THE HONBLE Ms.Justice K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI
Writ Appeal Nos.1000 and 1001 of 2015
and
M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2015
W.A.No.1000 of 2015
1. State Bank of India
rep. By its Managing Director (Personnel)
Madame Cama Road
Bombay 23.
2. The Chief General Manager
State Bank of India
Ahmedabad Local Head Office
Bhadra
Ahmedabad. ... Appellants
Vs
1. C.R.L.Narasimhan
2. The Commissioner of Domestic Enquiry
Central Vigilance Commission
Government of India, Block No.10
Akbar Road
New Delhi 1. ... Respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No:1/6
W.A.Nos.1000 and 1001 of 2015
PRAYER in W.A.No.1000 of 2015 : Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the
Letter Patent against the order dated 13/3/2015 passed in W.P.No.6460 of
1995.
W.A.No.1001 of 2015
1. State Bank of India
rep. By its Managing Director (Personnel)
Madame Cama Road
Bombay 23.
2. Reviewing Authority
(Central Office Human Resources Committee)
State Bank of India, Central Office
Madame Cama Road
Bombay 21.
3. The Appellate Authority
State Bank of India, Central Office
Madame Cama Road
Bombay 21. ... Appellants
Vs
1. C.R.L.Narasimhan
2. The Commissioner for Departmental Enquiry
Government of India
Central Vigilance Commission
Satarkta Bhavan I.N.A
New Delhi 23. ... Respondents
PRAYER in W.A.No.1001 of 2015 : Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the
Letter Patent against the order dated 13/3/2015 passed in W.P.No.12890 of
2003.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No:2/6
W.A.Nos.1000 and 1001 of 2015
For appellants ... Mr.S.Ravindran
Senior Counsel
for Mr.S.Bazeer Ahamed
For respondents ... Mr.N.G.Prasad
for Mr.V.Govardhanam
for R.1.
For R.2- not ready in notice.
-----
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J)
These Writ Appeals have been filed against the order dated
13/3/2015 passed in W.P.Nos.6460 of 1995 and 12890 of 2003.
2. The facts which are in a nutshell are as follows:-
a. W.P.No.6460 of 1995 is to quash the disciplinary proceedings
issued by the Chief General Manager, State Bank of India and further direct
the first and second respondents therein to release and pay the petitioner
therein his Provident Fund, gratuity, pension arrears due from 1/10/1993
onwards with interest at 15% p.a.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No:3/6
W.A.Nos.1000 and 1001 of 2015
b. W.P.No.12890 of 2003 is to quash the disciplinary proceeding
dated 22/1/2003 issued by the second respondent in terms of Rule 69 (3) of
the State Bank Officers Service Rules and forbear the respondents from
taking any proceedings pursuant to the order of the second respondent
therein.
3. Vide, common order, dated 13/3/2015, a learned Single Judge of
this Court had allowed the writ petitions and directed the respondents 1 and
2 therein, to release the service benefits to the petitioner, including
provident fund, gratuity, pension and arrears, if any, on and from the date on
which he was permitted to retire, viz., on 31/8/2007 with interest at the rate
of 6 % p.a., till the date of the said order, within a period of six weeks, from
the date of the said order.
4. Being aggrieved, the appellants have come forward with the instant
writ appeals.
5. Heard Mr.S.Ravindran, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants
and Mr.N.G.Prasad, learned counsel for the first respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No:4/6
W.A.Nos.1000 and 1001 of 2015
6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that under
Rule 19 (3) of the State Bank of India Officers Rule, the appellant Bank is
entitled to continue the disciplinary proceedings even after the employee
reached the age of superannuation and in the present case, vide, letter, dated
27/8/2007, invoking Clause 19 (3), the appellants retained its power to
continue the disciplinary proceedings after 31/8/2007, when the first
respondent reached the age of superannuation.
7. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the first respondent
submitted that the first respondent died on 24/7/2019 and he has got all the
monetary benefits on 30/7/2019. Therefore, punishment imposed by the
appellants of dismissal from service has now become abated. Hence, no
further adjudication is required in the aforesaid appeals.
8. We are in agreement with the said submission made by the learned
Senior Counsel for the first respondent. However, the learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the issue as to whether
the appellants are empowered to continue the disciplinary proceedings even
after the employee reached the age of superannuation by virtue of Rule 19
(3) of State Bank of India Officers Rules may be decided in these appeals.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No:5/6
W.A.Nos.1000 and 1001 of 2015
D.KRISHNAKUMAR,J
AND
K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI,J
mvs.
9. From the materials available on record, it could be seen that
appellants have not filed any petition for effecting substituted service.
Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the aforesaid question is
purely an academic pursuit, which can be left open for a decision in an
appropriate case.
10. In the result, the writ appeals are dismissed, leaving the issue
open for decision in an appropriate case.
(D.K.K.,J) (K.G.T.,J)
th
20 March, 2023
mvs.
W.A.Nos.1000 and 1001 of 2015
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No:6/6
