Summary
The Court upheld the bank’s refusal to implement a promotion recommendation kept in sealed cover where disciplinary proceedings ended in censure. Under the applicable staff circular, even that minor penalty prevented effect being given to the earlier recommendation; consideration could occur in the next promotion exercise. The employee had subsequently been promoted, leaving only the claim to an earlier date in dispute. The High Court orders granting relief were set aside, and the bank’s appeal was allowed with parties bearing their own costs.
Issues
- Whether a promotion recommendation kept in sealed cover could be implemented after disciplinary proceedings resulted in the minor penalty of censure.
- Whether adoption of sealed cover before the charge-sheet was justified under the applicable bank circular.
Provisions considered
- Paragraph 3(i)(a)–(c) and (iv), State Bank of India Staff Circular No.118The circular covered contemplated proceedings supported by a prima facie case, pending proceedings and suspension. Where proceedings ended in censure, the sealed recommendation was not implemented; consideration could take place in the next promotion exercise. (¶ SCR pp.25–28)
- Paragraph 49(a), State Bank of India (Supervising Staff) Service RulesCensure was a minor penalty, consistent with the circular’s treatment of the earlier sealed-cover recommendation. (¶ SCR p.27)
Held
- The applicable bank circular permitted sealed cover where disciplinary action was contemplated and a prima facie case existed. Here the disciplinary decision and call for explanation preceded the select list, although the formal charge-sheet came later. Its eventual outcome was the final penalty of censure. (¶ SCR pp.24–28)
- Censure, though the least of the minor penalties, did not amount to complete exoneration. Under the circular and the cited precedents, the sealed-cover recommendation could not be implemented; the officer could instead be considered in the next promotion exercise following conclusion of the proceedings. (¶ SCR pp.26–28)
- The officer had subsequently earned promotion, so the dispute concerned entitlement from an earlier date. The Single Judge and Division Bench orders were set aside and the bank’s appeal allowed, with parties bearing their own costs. (¶¶ SCR pp.25, SCR p.28)
Result
Appeal allowed. High Court orders set aside; parties to bear their own costs.