NAVIN KUMAR SINHA, S/O LATE AJAY KRISHNA KUMAR SINHA, RESIDENT OF HI Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, THROUGH CHAIRMAN, CORPORATE CENTRE, POST BOX NO.12, MUMBAI, 400 021

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter-alia prayed for quashing of the order dated 07.03.2012 whereby in purported exercise of power under Rule 67(j) of the State Bank of India the petitioner has been dismissed and the period of suspension was ordered to be treated as not on duty and for quashing of the order dated 29.10.2012 passed by the Appellate Authority and the order dated 16.01.2014 passed by the reviewing authority upholding the order of the appellate authority.

(2.) The facts as averred in the writ application, is that the petitioner entered initially the State Bank of India service way back on 08.06.1973, as Clerk typist. Thereafter, basing on service records, the petitioner was promoted in JMGS-1 with effect from 01.11.1980 and his further promotion was made in the position of MMGS-II with effect from 01.11.1999. As per the State Bank of India officer's (determination of terms and conditions of service) order, 1979, on completion of 30 years of service or attaining age of 58 years the bank officers are deemed to be retired. The petitioner completed 30 years of service in the year 2003. On 05.08.2003 the Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India vide letter dated 05.08.2003 intimated the petitioner for extension of services from 27.12.2003 to 01.10.2010 subject to the condition that the health of the petitioner is fit and his services is satisfactory as per Annexure-2 to the writ application. After 01.10.2010 the petitioner was never intimated for further extension of services and thus the petitioner would be deemed to have retired in terms of the State Bank of India Officer's (Determination of terms and conditions of services) Order, 1979. During the service extension period, the petitioner was issued memo of charge for alleged lapse during the posting as Branch Manager, Tangarbansali Branch and Dy. Manager (Accounts) at Torpa Branch during the period 19.01.2006 to 29.10.2008 and 23.01.2009 to 22.08.2009 respectively vide article of charges issued vide letter dated 18.08.2009 as per Annexure-3 to the writ application. Thereafter, the petitioner was placed under suspension on the allegations of irregularities in sanction, conduct and follow up of advance and irregularities in the DDP as per Annexure-4 to the writ application. The petitioner submitted his explanation requesting the DGM of the bank vide letter dated 28.08.2009 to provide inspection of documents basing on which allegations have been levelled and on 31.08.2009 the Deputy General Manager permitted to visit and peruse the document in the presence of the Branch Manager as per Annexure-6 to the writ application. The petitioner represented the Deputy General Manager on 14.09.2009 to provide 45 days time to scrutinize the voluminous documents and records. The Dy. General Manager instead of granting further time asked the petitioner to submit explanation within five days. The petitioner once again represented the Dy. General Manager on 23.09.2009 requesting therein to provide 15 days time for verification of records. On 24.09.2009 the petitioner was intimated refusal of opportunity to inspect the document and petitioner was asked to submit explanation within the time stipulated earlier. However, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 27.10.2009 despite denial of opportunity to inspect the voluminous documents. The disciplinary authority decided to initiate departmental proceeding vide letter dated 18.03.2011 containing article of charges and petitioner was asked to submit written statement of defence within 15 days. The petitioner on 03.05.2011 represented the Branch Manager, Tangarbansali to allow the petitioner to inspect the document but no heed was paid by the Branch Manager and thereafter, the petitioner represented the Dy. G.M to allow the petitioner to visit and verify the documents. On 05.05.2011 under compelling circumstances submitted his explanation and denied the allegations and requested to exonerate him from the charges. Unfortunately disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. The departmental enquiry commenced on 24.05.2011 and 08.07.2011 was the date fixed in the departmental proceeding. Neither the list of witness nor the list of documents were enclosed with the charges. On 07.03.2012, the respondent General Manager issued order of dismissal in purported exercise of power under rule 67 (j) of the Service Rules as per Annexure-21 to the writ application. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority on 24.04.2012 in which he highlighted the infirmity in the conduct of departmental proceeding and also raised the issue of excessive punishment of dismissal. The appellate authority rejected the appeal vide order dated 26.10.2012 vide Annexure-22 to the writ application and being aggrieved by the order of the appellate authority, the petitioner preferred revision against the order of punishment and the appellate order on 14.12.2012 and the re-visional authority vide order dated 16.01.2014 has been pleased to uphold the order of the appellate authority. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner left with no other alternative efficacious and speedy remedy, has approached this Court invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievances.

(3.) Mr. K. P. Deo, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously urged that the order of dismissal dated 07.03.2012 is a nullity in the eye of law. Since the petitioner has already superannuated on 01.10.2010, no order of dismissal could have been passed against the petitioner being superannuated employee without extending his services. The judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. J. Ahmad reported in 1979 (2) SCC 286 ; paragraphs 15 and 16 of the said judgment has been referred to by learned Counsel for petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the departmental proceeding conducted against the petitioner is even otherwise vitiated on account of the continuing departmental proceeding without extension of service of the petitioner after 01.10.2010 and the order of infliction of punishment being affirmed by the appellate as well as re-visional authority is accordingly void ab-initio. Further, it is submitted that the departmental proceeding is even otherwise vitiated from (a) non-furnishing of list of witnesses along with the memorandum of charges as required under Rule 68 of the Service Rule; (b) the denial of opportunity to verify the records on which the charges were based; (c) denial of documents for effective defence in the departmental enquiry; (d) non-consideration of 37 years unblemished service record of the petitioner while holding the petitioner guilty and inflicting punishment of dismissal; (e) punishment of dismissal for alleged misconduct under Rule 50 (4) i.e. general expectation of good behaviour is no misconduct warranting/punishment of dismissal. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that since the bank has not suffered any pecuniary loss and there is no case of embezzlement of money, rather case of lack of performance in procedural aspects has been found out therefore, the punishment of dismissal is exceedingly harsh and disproportionate to the alleged charges.