Recently, the Supreme Court addressed the case of a State Bank of India (SBI) officer who was dismissed after disciplinary proceedings were initiated post-retirement. The officer’s service was extended until 01.10.2010, after which it ended. The Court observed that disciplinary proceedings could not continue after retirement unless explicitly allowed by rules. Since no such provision existed the court quashed the dismissal order, finding it legally unsustainable.
Brief Facts:
In the present case, the respondent, a State Bank of India (SBI) officer, was dismissed from service after disciplinary proceedings were initiated for alleged irregularities in loan sanctioning and missing documents. Despite an extension of service until 2010, disciplinary action began in 2011 after the respondent’s superannuation. He was placed under suspension in 2009 and later issued a charge sheet. Following an inquiry, the penalty of dismissal was imposed in 2012. Appeals against the dismissal were rejected, leading the respondent to file a writ petition in the High Court. The Single Bench ruled that the disciplinary proceedings initiated post-superannuation were invalid, and the penalty was set aside. This decision was upheld by the Division Bench. The appellants challenged the ruling in the Supreme Court, which eventually granted leave to appeal. The respondent contended that the disciplinary proceedings were void as they were initiated after his service had ended.
Contention of the Appellant:
The Counsel for the appellants argued that the respondent committed serious irregularities during his service, leading to a show-cause notice and a departmental inquiry. The inquiry found 16 out of 20 charges against the respondent, including sanctioning loans to family members without approval, disbursing loans without proper documentation, and unauthorized debiting of customer accounts. Further, the Counsel emphasized that the penalty order was issued before the respondent reached the age of 60 and noted that the respondent did not contest the initiation of proceedings after superannuation, but only challenged the penalty on merit. He pointed out that the respondent had accepted subsistence allowance after 01.10.2010, indicating the continuation of service. Additionally, the counsel also cited Rule 19 of the Service Rules, arguing that superannuation required formal sanction and that the proceedings were valid as they were initiated before retirement. He relied on the SBI v. C.B. Dhall case to support the claim that the respondent was deemed to have continued in service for the purpose of the departmental proceedings.
Contention of the Respondent:
The Counsel for the respondent argued that the High Court’s decision was correct. He contended that the central issue was whether the appellant bank could initiate disciplinary proceedings after the respondent’s superannuation. The respondent completed 30 years of service in 2003 and was due for superannuation, but his service was extended until 01.10.2010. After this date, his service ceased, and no further extensions were granted. The Counsel also highlighted that although the appellant issued a show-cause notice and suspended the respondent in 2009, the departmental proceedings, under Rule 68(1), were only initiated in 2011, after the respondent’s service had ended. He argued that the respondent’s participation in the proceedings and the acceptance of subsistence allowance did not extend his service. He therefore submitted that the penalty order was void, and the High Court rightly intervened. He relied on the decision in UCO Bank v. Rajinder Lal Capoor and UCO Bank v. M.B. Motiwani to support his case.
Observation of the Court:
The court observed that the petitioner had completed 30 years of service with the State Bank of India (SBI) in December 2003. According to Rule 19(1) of the State Bank of India Officers’ Service Rules, the petitioner should have retired upon completion of 30 years of service. However, his service was extended until 01.10.2010. The court noted that after this date, there was no further extension granted, and the petitioner’s employment relationship with the bank ended. The court emphasized the significance of this timeline in evaluating the legality of the disciplinary proceedings initiated after the petitioner’s retirement. The Court held that “Indisputably, on completion of 30 years of service in the year 2003, the services of the petitioner were extended till 01.10.2010 as per the State Bank of India Officers (Determination of Terms & Conditions of Service) 1979”.
The Court further examined the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner after his retirement. It noted that, while disciplinary proceedings can continue if initiated before the officer’s retirement, they cannot be initiated after retirement. In this case, the disciplinary action was taken after the petitioner’s service had ended. The Court pointed out that the service had ended. The Court pointed out that the service extension ceased on 01.10.2010, and no valid rules allowed for the continuation of such proceedings post-retirement. The Court noted that “After submission of explanation to the alleged charges, the disciplinary authority decided to initiate departmental proceeding vide letter dated 18.03.2011 containing article of charges… Admittedly, there has not been extension of service after 01.10.2010 nor any provision of relevant rules has been brought to the notice of this Court as to what would be effect the disciplinary proceeding after retirement”.
The court emphasized that disciplinary proceedings could not continue after an officer’s retirement unless explicitly allowed by rules. The absence of any such provision in the relevant rules made the disciplinary action against the petitioner illegal and unsustainable. The court referred to the case of Union of India v. J. Ahmad, where the Supreme Court held that disciplinary proceedings cannot be initiated post-retirement unless specific provisions are made in the rules governing such actions, stating, “Therefore, on that score, the impugned order of dismissal dated 07.03.2012 passed by the appointing authority being affirmed by the appellate authority as well as reviewing authorities being not legally sustainable is liable to be quashed”. The court further observed that there was no evidence of any loss or damage caused to the bank by the petitioner’s alleged misconduct, which was another factor rendering the disciplinary proceedings unjustifiable. Since the petitioner’s service had ended, and the disciplinary proceedings could not be pursued post-retirement, the court concluded that the dismissal was unlawful.
The court concluded that the petitioner’s employment had effectively ended on 01.10.2010, and since no disciplinary proceedings could be initiated thereafter, the dismissal order dated 07.03.2012 was quashed. The court noted that the action taken by the bank was both unreasonable and illegal in light of the applicable rules and judicial precedents.
The decision of the Court:
The Court allowed the petition, quashed the order of dismissal, and directed that the petitioner’s service dues be released promptly. The dismissal was found to be contrary to the legal framework governing post-retirement disciplinary actions.
Case Title: State Bank of India & Ors. v. Navin Kumar Sinha
Citation: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1279 OF 2024
Coram: Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
Advocate for Appellant: Adv. Balbir Singh (Senior Advocate)
Advocate for Respondent: Adv. Vishwajit Singh (Senior Advocate)
Read Judgment@LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
