D.C. AGARWAL versus STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1994] 2 S.C.R. 638 · Decided: 11-03-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

f 
\ 
A 
D.C. AGARWAL 
v. 
. 
..-
STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS. 
MARCH 11, 1994 
B 
[S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN AND KM. SAHA!, JJ.] 
Service Law-State Bank of India-Deputy General Manager-E.xten-
sion of service-Consideration of by Review Committee-Held, matter of ex-
c 
tension had to be considered by a committee co11sisting of Managing Director 
and certain Deputy Managing Directors mentioned by designation-Review 
Committee is a recommending body only-Final order to be passed by com-
petent authority higher in rank than Deputy Managing Directo,......Order having 
been passed by a member of Review Committee was in gross violation of 
procedure and guidelines-It is also violative of fairplay. 
D 
The appellant was a Deputy General Manager in the respondent 
Bank. A departmental inquiry was ordered against him, which resulted in 
imposing the punishment of reduction by three grades. The order was set 
aside by the High Court. The decision of the High Court was maintained 
E 
by this Court. Since the Court's order was not complied with, the appellant 
i.nitiated contempt proceedings whereas the respondents moved this Court 
for review of its order. The respondents also filed a special leave petition 
against issuance of notice in the contempt case. This Court, disposing of 
the matters, in August 1993, directed the respondents to consider the 
appellant for promotion. The appellant was due to superannuate at the 
F 
age of 58 in September 1993. He could be considered for promotion only 
if be was in service. A Review Committee, which considered the case of the 
>-··· 
appellant for extension of bis service upto the age of 60 years, did not find 
him suitable. The recommendation was accepted by the appropriate 
authority and its order refusing to grant extension to the appellant was 
G 
maintained in the department appeal. The appellant challenged the order 
by filing a writ petition which was dismissed by the High Court. 
In appeal to this Court, it was contended on behalf of the appellant 
that the constitution of the Review Committee was not proper inasmuch 
,JI 
" 
• 
as the persons constituting the committee were not entitled to consider the 
H issue regarding extension of service of the officers of the category to which 
638 
• 
• 
j 
AGARWAL v. S.B.I. 
639 
the appellant belonged and; that the appellant authority had based its A 
findings on assumptions and not on appraisal of record. It was stated that 
the extension in the Bank services was granted at the age of 50, 55 and 68 
years and the appellant having been granted extension after the age of 55 
years in 1993 only should not have been refused extension when there was 
no material to show that he bad deteriorated in his functioning. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD 1.1. The decision taken by the respondents was vitiated by 
violating the rules and the guidelines provided for extension of service. 
(643 A] 
1.2. The matter of extension bad to be considered by a committee 
consisting of Managing Director and certain Duputy Managing Directors 
who are mentioned by designation. Admittedly, none of them were mem-
bers of the Review Committee. (642 E] 
B 
c 
1.3. The Review Committee is a recommending body only. The final D 
order had to be passed by the competent authority on recommendation of 
the committee. Such officer is always higher in rank than the Deputy 
Managing Director. The final order was not passed by the competant 
authority. It having been passed by a person who was a member of the 
Review Committee, was in gross violation of the procedure and the guide E 
lines provided. It is also violative of fair play. Though the appellate 
authority bad examined the record, but it did not apply its mind to this 
aspect which was basis and fundamental. (642 H; 643 A] 
1.4. Besides, the extension of service of the appellant had to he 
decided objectively on material on record to find out if he was entitled to F 
extension. [642 DJ 
2. The respondents are directed to constitute a fresh Committee of 
the personnel, mentioned in the rules itself, other than the members of the 
earlier Committee. In case the appellant bad made any allegation against 
any of those Deputy Directors, then the Committee shall comprise of G 
Deputy Directors other than those mentioned in the rules. The recommen-
dation of the Committee shall be placed before the competent authority 
who shall be different and higher in rank than the members constituting 
the Committee. (643 B, CJ 
3. Th

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.