STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. C.K.KARUNAKARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent was employed with the appellant-bank in the Middle Management Grade Scale-II and his promotion to Middle Management Grade Scale-III came up for consideration in November, 1984 when he was interviewed by the Interview Committee which made its recommendation to the promoting authority. In the meantime, apparently the disciplinary authority took a decision to initiate departmental action against the respondent on 28/1/1985. His explanation was called for on 18/2/1985 and the charge-sheet was issued on 4/11/1985. In view of the pendency of these disciplinary proceedings, the promoting authority after considering the recommendations of the Interview Committee issued a select list on 23/8/1985 but the result of the respondent was kept in a sealed cover. The charge-sheet resulted in a punishment of censure to the respondent on 28/7/1987 and thus the promotion was not given effect to. The order of the disciplinary authority was assailed by the respondent in departmental appeal and the same was dismissed on 13/12/1988 which attained finality.

(2.) The grievance of the respondent was that despite the censure, the sealed cover procedure having been adopted, the same shall have been given effect to after the period of censure was over. In this behalf the respondent filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority on 26/11/1990 but the same was rejected and thus Writ Petition being O.P. No.8947/1992 was filed before the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam directing the bank to consider the case of the respondent ignoring the sealed cover procedure.

(3.) The Writ Petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge in terms of order dtd. 30/5/2003 opining that the ex-post facto decision of imposing censure could not be relied upon for denying the benefit of promotion and since the decision dtd. 28/1/1985 to take disciplinary action against the respondent was the only impediment standing in the way of the respondent, he is entitled to the benefit of promotion. The appeal was dismissed by a brief order dtd. 30/5/2003 by the Division Bench which has been assailed in the present appeal. Interim stay of the operation of the order was granted on 29/9/2009 while granting leave. Respondent from the inception has not entered appearance in the present proceedings.