STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. B R VAID

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is defendant's second appeal against whom the suit for declaration was dismissed by the trial Court, but decreed in appeal.

(2.) The plaintiff-respondent brought the suit for the grant of the declaration to the effect that he had retired from the service of the Bank with effect from January 9, 1982, afternoon and consequently, the order dated March 12, 1982, vide which the appellant Bank had directed him to file reply to the charge-sheet served on him vide letter dated February 15, 1982, was illegal; against the rules, principles of natural justice, equity and fair play; hence null and void. According to the plaintiff, he was working as Branch Manager of the State Bank of India, Railway Road Branch, Jullundur, when he had to apply for leave on August 4, 1980, and consequently handed over the complete charge of his post on the same day to one Shri O.P. Sharma. According to him, as his health had deteriorated, he applied for his premature retirement after attaining the age of 55 years. His claim in the suit was that he had attained the age of superannuation on January 9, 1982, afternoon and, therefore he retired from Bank service on that day, but the Bank conveyed to him that he had been given an extention of three months. According to him, he was no more in the service of the Bank. The letter received by him was incompetent and therefore, he declined to accept the extention vide letter dated January 16, 1982. It was further pleaded that thereafter he received the charge-sheet dated February 15, 1982, which was illegal and could not be served upon him after his retirement from service. On behalf of the defendant Bank it was pleaded that the plaintiff was previously an employee of the Imperial Bank of India and had been transferred to the State Bank of India. It was stated that the State Bank of India could determine the terms and conditions of the employment and service of its employees. As such, the plaintiff was also governed by the Rules and Regulations of the Bank. As per the rules and regulations, the retirement age of the plaintiff was January 31, 1982 and not January 9, 1982, as alleged. The order of the Bank giving extention to him was defended as validly passed. The trial Court found that the plaintiff retired from the Bank service on January 31, 1982, and not on January 9, 1982, as alleged. However, it is no more disputed that according to the rules, the plaintiff was to retire from service on January 31, 1982. According to the trial Court, the plaintiff did not stand retired from service automatically because the service of any employee could be extended by the Regional Manager of the Bank in accordance with the rules and regulations. It was, therefore, held that the superannuation age of the plaintiff was January 31, 1982 and that his service was extended up to April 9, 1982. The impugned order was therefore, legal. In view of the said finding, the plaintiff's suit was dismissed. In appeal, the learned Additional District Judge came to the conclusion that according to paragraph 19(3) of the State Bank of India Officers (Determination of Terms and Conditions of Service) Order, 1979, the plaintiff's case was not covered thereunder. It required that disciplinary proceedings be initiated against the officers before the date of his retirement so as to continue his service even after the date of his retirement to complete the proceedings. Since the charge-sheet was issued during the extended period, the same was held to be illegal. Consequently, the plaintiff's suit was decreed.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that when the plaintiff sought premature retirement vide letter dated November 13, 1981, the same was refused and the telegram dated January 6, 1982, was sent to this effect. The confirmatory letter confirming this telegram is January 7, 1982. However, the plaintiff refused to accept the extention vide letter dated January 16, 1982. Meanwhile, the charge-sheet was served on him vide letter dated February 15, 1982. Short reply to the charge-sheet was filed by him on March 3, 1982. The Bank directed him to file complete reply to the charge-sheet vide letter dated March 12, 1982. Vide letter dated April 7, 1982 the plaintiff was further granted extension in service up to July 9, 1982. Thus, argued the learned counsel, in view of the provisions of paragraph 19(3) of the above-said Order, the period could be extended for concluding the enquiry started against the plaintiff.