STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. BELA BAGCHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) The State Bank of India and its Regional Manager, Region-II, Calcutta, Deputy General Manager, Zonal Office and Branch Manager, Berhampore Branch, question correctness of the judgments rendered by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court holding that continuation of the proceedings initiated against Shri Snigdha Kanti Bagchi (hereinafter referred to as the employee) after the date of his superannuation was illegal, without jurisdiction. The said employee had filed a writ petition where the present appellants and the Union of India, Secretary, Ministry of Finance (Banking), pro forma respondent were impleaded as opposite parties. In the writ petition prayer was made to quash order passed in the disciplinary proceedings initiated which was continued after the alleged date of superannuation. A learned single Judge of the High Court held that under the Service Rules of the Bank it was not permissible to continue the proceedings beyond the date of superannuation and, therefore, the decision of the authorities was bad. Appeal was filed by the Bank and its functionaries questioning correctness of the conclusions of learned single Judge. The High Court by the impugned judgment upheld the decision of the learned single Judge. It is to be noted that during the pendency of the writ application before the learned single Judge, the employee had expired and in his place his widow and daughter (the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in this appeal) were impleaded as parties.

(3.) Factual background needs to be noted in brief: The employee was placed under suspension vide order dated 3-12-1986 and charge-sheet was issued in the departmental proceedings on 3-12-1986. Allegations were to the effect that the employee had received money from an account-holder for depositing in his savings bank account, but did not deposit the amount. A fictitious credit entry was made in the pass-book of the account-holder. This had happened on 10th October, 1985. Again in May, 1996 the account-holder handed-over money which was also not deposited and fraudulent entry was made. On 9th April, 1985 by four withdrawal slips money was withdrawn. Similar was the position on another date. A hand-note was executed in favour of the account-holder. Cheques for re-payment of the amounts collected were issued which were dishonoured. This happened on five occasions. According to the Bank the acts committed constitute individually and collectively gross misconduct as defined in paragraph 521(4)(j) of the Sastry Award as retained by the Desai Award. This also constituted moral turpitude as laid down in paragraph 521(1) of the aforesaid Awards. In the charge-sheet it was indicated that if established punishment as laid down in paragraph 521(5) of the aforesaid Awards i.e. dismissal without notice can be imposed. During continuation of the proceedings on 22nd April, 1988 the Bank by its order intimated the employee that it had been decided to grant extension of service by a period of three months w.e.f. 1st May, 1988 to 31st July, 1988 to facilitate completion of departmental proceedings pending. Accordingly, he was granted extension of service w.e.f. 1st May, 1988. Show-cause reply was submitted by the employee on 31-5-1988. By order dated 2-7-1988 the employee was dismissed from Banks service with immediate effect. An appeal was preferred before the Deputy General Manager, Regional Office, requesting that on humanitarian grounds the punishment inflicted may be remitted so that the employee could get his terminal benefits. The prayer was rejected. As noted above, writ petition filed was allowed by the learned single Judge on the ground that order of dismissal was passed after the age of superannuation. The Division Bench also confirmed the order primarily placing reliance on a decision of this Court in State Bank of India vs. A.N. Gupta and others (1997) 8 SCC 60. It was held that departmental proceedings cannot be continued after retirement unless there was specific provision to that effect in the relevant Service Rules. According to the Division Bench the Service Rules of Imperial Bank of India (in short Imperial Bank) were applicable and order of termination was bad.