Disciplinary Proceeding Can’t Be Initiated After Delinquent Employee Retires On Attaining Superannuation Age Or After Extended Period Of Service: SC

The Supreme Court observed that the disciplinary proceeding cannot be initiated after the delinquent employee retires from service on attaining the age of superannuation or after the extended period of service.

The Court observed thus in a Civil Appeal preferred by the State Bank of India (SBI) and its officers, challenging the Judgment and Order of the Jharkhand High Court.

The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan held, “As has been held by this Court on more than one occasion, a subsisting disciplinary proceeding i.e. one initiated before superannuation of the delinquent officer may be continued post superannuation by creating a legal fiction of continuance of service of the delinquent officer for the purpose of conclusion of the disciplinary proceeding (in this case as per Rule 19(3) of the Service Rules). But no disciplinary proceeding can be initiated after the delinquent employee or officer retires from service on attaining the age of superannuation or after the extended period of service.”

The Bench said that, where the disciplinary proceeding itself is without jurisdiction, upholding the same on the specious plea that it was not challenged on the ground of lack of jurisdiction would be tantamount to giving imprimatur to a patently illegal proceeding.

Senior Advocate Balbir Singh appeared for the Appellants while Senior Advocate Vishwajit Singh appeared for the Respondent.

Factual Background -

The Respondent, an officer of SBI was subjected to a disciplinary proceeding following which the penalty of dismissal from service was imposed on him. He was promoted several times and was supposed to retire on December 26, 2003, but his service was extended until October 1, 2010. In August 2009, he was accused of irregularities, including sanctioning loans to relatives in violation of banking norms, and missing documents. Resultantly, he was suspended. Departmental Appeal filed by him against the dismissal Order was rejected by the Appellate authority as well as the Petition for Review. He then filed a Writ Petition before the High Court against the Order of Penalty and the Single Judge allowed the same. The impugned Order was set aside on the ground that the disciplinary proceeding was initiated after superannuation of the Respondent including the extended period of service.

Therefore, such disciplinary proceeding was held to be void ab initio and the consequential Order of penalty was set aside with a further direction to the Appellants to pay the retiral and other dues of the Respondent. The Appellants decided to initiate disciplinary proceeding against the Respondent. The Disciplinary Authority passed an Order imposing penalty of dismissal from service on the Respondent. The Appeal of the Respondent was dismissed and he preferred a Review Petition but it was also dismissed. Being aggrieved, he approached the High Court and it quashed the Reviewing Authority’s Order. The Appellants then approached the Division Bench and it concurred with the view of the Single Bench. Consequently, the Appellants were before the Apex Court.

The Supreme Court after hearing the contentions of the counsel, noted, “The relationship of master and servant between the appellants and the respondent came to be severed on and from 01.10.2010. The factum of receipt of subsistence allowance thereafter or the respondent declaring that he would superannuate on a later date i.e. on 30.10.2012 on attaining the age of 60 years would not make any difference to the legal and factual scenario. Therefore, it is evident that respondent was no longer in the service of SBI post 01.10.2010.”

The Court enunciated that attaining 60 years of service (earlier 58 years) is not the sole criterion of superannuation of an officer serving in SBI and it is one of the three contingencies.

“If any of the three contingencies are fulfilled, an officer would be superannuated. Respondent had actually superannuated from service in SBI on 26.12.2003 on completion of 30 years of service but his service was extended prior thereto on 05.08.2003 from 27.12.2003 to 01.10.2010. Post 01.10.2010 there was no further extension of service”, it added.

Accordingly, the Apex Court dismissed the Appeal and directed the Appellants to release all the service dues of the Respondent expeditiously, not later than six weeks.

Cause Title- State Bank of India & Ors. v. Navin Kumar Sinha (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 874)

Appearance:

Appellants: Senior Advocate Balbir Singh, AOR Sanjay Kapur, Advocates Divya Singh Pundir, Mahima Kapur, and Devesh Dubey.

Respondent: Senior Advocate Vishwajit Singh, AOR Rakesh Kumar Singh, Advocates Vignesh Singh, Rajnish Kumar Singh, Rajan Kumar Singh, Rajeev Ranjan, Ridhima Singh, and Pankaj Singh.

Click here to read/download the Judgment