New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that no disciplinary proceeding can be initiated against a delinquent employee or officer who retires from service on attaining the age of superannuation or after the extended period of service.
A bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan dismissed an appeal by State Bank of India and others against a judgment of the Jharkhand High Court, which quashed the dismissal order issued against Navin Kumar Sinha.
The bench said 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.
“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”, said the bench, in its 36-page judgment.
The bench said appellants have contended that Sinha was paid subsistence allowance from his date of suspension, August 21, 2009, till his dismissal from service vide order dated March 7, 2012, beyond October 1, 2010. Besides it was the case of the respondent (Sinha) himself before the enquiry officer, disciplinary authority as well as before the appellate authority that he was due to superannuate on October 30, 20212.
He also did not plead either before the said authorities or before the High Court that he had ceased to be in service of SBI from October 1, 2010, and therefore the disciplinary proceeding initiated thereafter on March 18, 2011, was void-ab-initio.
The appellants contended that the single judge of the High Court was not justified in accepting the challenge of the respondent to the order of penalty on a completely different ground.
“We are afraid we cannot accept such a contention on behalf of the appellants. 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,” said the bench.
The apex court observed that a departmental proceeding is not initiated merely on the issuance of a show cause notice, instead it is initiated when a chargesheet is issued because that is the date of application of mind on the allegations levelled against an employee by the competent authority. The High Court had noted that the disciplinary proceeding was initiated after his superannuation, including the extended period of service.
On August 18, 2009, a notice was issued to Sinha by the appellant SBI calling for his explanation as to why disciplinary action should not be initiated against him for violating the instructions of SBI. The allegations highlighted in the notice mostly pertained to the sanctioning of loans by Sinha in favour of his relatives in deviation of banking norms and missing of documents related to the sanctioning of the loans
The bench said Sinha had actually superannuated from service in SBI on December 26, 2003, on completion of 30 years of service but his service was extended prior thereto on August 05, 2003, from December 27, 2003, to October 01, 2010, and after October 01, 2010, there was no further extension of service.
“Disciplinary proceeding against the respondent was not initiated on 18.08.2009 when the first notice to show cause was issued but was initiated only on 18.03.2011 when the disciplinary authority issued the charge memo to the respondent,” said the apex court.
The apex court, dismissing the appeal, said, “appellants are directed to release all the service dues of the respondent expeditiously and at any rate not later than six weeks from today”. (ETV Bharat)
