Summary
The Supreme Court held that SBI could not initiate disciplinary proceedings against an officer whose extended service had ended, and upheld the quashing of his dismissal. A disciplinary proceeding begins only when the charge memo is issued, not with an earlier show cause notice, and Rule 19(3) of the SBI Officers' Service Rules only lets a proceeding already initiated before cessation of service continue afterwards.
Issues
- When is a disciplinary proceeding said to be initiated against an officer: on the issue of a show cause notice or on the issue of a charge memo?
- Whether SBI could initiate disciplinary proceedings against an officer after his extended period of service had expired, though he had not reached 60 years of age.
- Whether the officer was precluded from raising lack of jurisdiction because he had not pleaded it earlier, had stated a later date of superannuation and had accepted subsistence allowance.
Provisions considered
- Rule 19(1), State Bank of India Officers' Service Rules, 1992An officer retires on reaching 60 years or completing 30 years' service or pensionable service, whichever is first; the competent authority may extend service for recorded reasons, but not beyond age 60. Age is only one of three contingencies, so the officer's service ended when the extension expired. (¶¶ 16.1, 16.2, 28, 29)
- Rule 19(2), State Bank of India Officers' Service Rules, 1992The requirement that cessation of service be sanctioned as retirement applies only for the purposes of the pension fund rules and does not prevent cessation of service by operation of Rule 19(1). (¶¶ 12.4, 16.3)
- Rule 19(3), State Bank of India Officers' Service Rules, 1992Creates a legal fiction of continued service solely for continuing and concluding a disciplinary proceeding initiated before the officer ceases to be in service; it cannot support a proceeding initiated afterwards. (¶¶ 12.5, 16.4, 31)
- Rule 68, State Bank of India Officers' Service Rules, 1992Disciplinary proceedings are instituted, and articles of charge with the statement of allegations are communicated, under Rule 68; the proceeding here was initiated under Rule 68(1) only when the charge memo issued, after service had ended. (¶¶ 7.1, 17.2, 17.3, 23, 30)
- Order 19, State Bank of India Officers (Determination of Terms and Conditions of Service) Order, 1979The corresponding earlier provision prescribing retirement on 58 years or 30 years' service, extension of service and continuation of pending disciplinary proceedings was compared with Rule 19 of the Service Rules, which changed only the age to 60. (¶¶ 15.1, 15.2, 15.3, 15.4, 15.5, 16.2)
- Rule 20B, State Bank of India (Supervising Staff) Service Rules, 1975C.B. Dhall, relied on by the bank, was held to support only the continuation after retirement of a proceeding initiated before retirement, with the employee deemed in service for that purpose alone. (¶¶ 12.5, 32)
Held
- A disciplinary proceeding is initiated only when a charge memo or chargesheet is issued, not when a show cause notice is issued, as reiterated in K.V. Jankiraman, Rajinder Lal Capoor, Coal India v. Saroj Kumar Mishra, D.R.P. Sundharam and M.B. Motwani. Here the proceeding began on 18.03.2011, not with the 2009 notice. (¶¶ 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 30)
- Under Rule 19(1), reaching the age limit is only one of three contingencies of superannuation; an officer who completes 30 years of service superannuates then, and any extension cannot exceed age 60. The respondent's extended service ended on 01.10.2010 and the employer-employee relationship was severed from that date. (¶¶ 16.2, 28, 29)
- A proceeding initiated before superannuation may continue afterwards by the legal fiction in Rule 19(3), but no disciplinary proceeding can be initiated after the officer retires on superannuation or after the extended period of service ends. Issuing the charge memo after the extension expired was an undisputed jurisdictional defect. (¶¶ 24, 31, 32)
- The officer's receipt of subsistence allowance after his service ended and his own statement that he would superannuate later on turning 60 do not alter the legal position or extend his service. (¶¶ 25, 28)
- Where a disciplinary proceeding is without jurisdiction, it cannot be upheld because the officer did not challenge it on that ground earlier; doing so would lend approval to a patently illegal proceeding. (¶¶ 25, 26)
Result
Appeal dismissed; the High Court's quashing of the dismissal order and the appellate and review orders upheld; SBI directed to release all service dues of the respondent within six weeks.