Summary
An SBI branch manager was dismissed in 1999 after a departmental enquiry. A Single Judge set the dismissal aside because the authority that passed it had not heard him, but that order stayed suspended while the Bank's appeal was pending. He retired in 2009. The Supreme Court, upholding the principle that the authority who hears the matter must decide it, directed the Appointing Authority to decide afresh, keeping all contentions open. After a show-cause notice and a hearing, he was again dismissed with effect from 1999. The High Court quashed that order as made without action under Rule 19(3) to continue proceedings after retirement. The Supreme Court restored the dismissal. The 1999 proceedings had already concluded, he was never deemed to be in service while the stay operated, and the fresh order complied with the Court's direction.
Issues
- Whether, after the respondent's superannuation, the Appointing Authority could pass a fresh order of dismissal with effect from 1999 pursuant to the Supreme Court's direction without invoking Rule 19(3) of the State Bank of India Officers' Service Rules, 1992.
Provisions considered
- Rules 19(1) and 19(3), State Bank of India Officers' Service Rules, 1992Rule 19(3) applies only where disciplinary proceedings are pending when the officer ceases to be in service; it was inapplicable as the proceedings had culminated in dismissal in 1999. (¶¶ 9, 10, 12)
- Rule 67(j), State Bank of India Officers' Service Rules, 1992The penalty of dismissal was imposed afresh under this rule after show-cause notice and personal hearing, with effect from 11.08.1999. (¶¶ 5, 13)
Held
- The Single Judge's order setting aside the 1999 dismissal remained stayed until the respondent superannuated on 30.11.2009, and the Division Bench order affirming it was later set aside, so the respondent could not be deemed to have continued in service. (¶ 11)
- Rule 19(3) contemplates proceedings pending at the time of cessation of service and had no application where the proceedings had already culminated in dismissal; the Managing Director was not required to exercise any discretion under it. (¶ 12)
- Since the Supreme Court had kept all contentions open and directed a fresh decision by the authority that heard the matter, the dismissal with effect from 11.08.1999, passed after notice and hearing, was in consonance with that direction and not arbitrary or illegal; no affirmative action to retain the respondent was required. (¶¶ 13, 14)
Result
Civil Appeal No. 175 of 2023 allowed; the Patna High Court Division Bench judgment dated 01.02.2018 in LPA No. 2035 of 2016 and the Single Judge's order quashing the dismissal set aside.