STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ANR. versus BELA BAGCHI AND ORS.

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 1084 · Decided: 31-08-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
ST A TE BANK OF INDIA AND ANR. 
v. 
BELA BAGCHI AND ORS. 
AUGUST 31, 2005 
[ARlJIT PASAYAT AND ARUN KUMAR, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
Disciplinary proceedings initiated against employee of Appellant-Bank-
Continuance of the proceedings even after date of his superannuation-
Permissib il ity of-Held : Permissible, in view of Rules 20A and 20B of the 
Service Rules which gave appellant-Bank the discretion to continue disciplinary 
proceedings even after the employee ceased to be in service-Order of 
dismissal passed subsequently accordingly upheld-State Bank of India 
D (Supervising Stajj) Service Rules, 1975-Rules 20-A and 20-B-State Bank 
of India Act, 1955-Section 43-All India State Bank Staff Federation 
Agreement-Para I 1.1 of Chapter XI. 
Banking Service-Standard of conduct expected of Bank officials-
E Requirement of exercising higher standards of honesty and integrity-On 
facts, Held : The bank official acted without authority and charges against 
him were serious-Absence of loss to the bank cannot be a defence. 
F 
G 
H 
Disciplinary proceeding were initiated against employee of appellant-
bank on grounds that he received money from an account holder, but did 
not deposit the same in his savings bank account. Service period of the 
delinquent employee was extended in order to facilitate completion of 
pending disciplinary proceedings against him. The proceedings continued 
beyond the date of his superannuation. On completion of the proceedings 
an order of dismissal was passed against the employee. 
The question which arose for consideration in the present appeal is 
that whether under the Service Rules of the Bank it was permissible to 
continue the disciplinary proceedings beyond the date of superannuation. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
1084 
S.B.I. v. BELA BAGCHI 
1085 
HELD : 1. The extension of service was made in order to facilitate A 
the completio.n of departmental proceedings. At no point of time during 
continuance of the proceedings the employee had questioned legality of 
the proceedings. Even ifthere can be any acquiesce to confer jurisdiction, 
yet the settlement was binding on the parties as quoted in Para 11.1. of 
Chapter XI of the All India State Bank Staff Federation Agreement. Plea B 
of the respondents that extension can be given to a physically fit and 
efficient person and same could not have been granted for completing the 
departmental proceedings, is clearly untenable in view of the applicable 
Rules. (1090-E, F] 
2.1. Section 43 of the State Bank of India Act, 1955 empowered the C 
State Bank to determine the terms and conditions of the appointment and 
service of its officers and employees. These officer and employees exercise 
such powers and perform such duties as may be entrusted or delegated to 
them by the Central Board or the State Bank. Section 50 of the State Bank 
oflndia Act empowered the Central Board to make regulations but Section D 
43 is independent of Section 50. Rules 20-A and 20-B of the State Bank of 
India (Supervising Stafl) Service Rules, 1975 framed under Section 43 of 
the State Bank oflndia Act make material difference. [i090-C, DJ 
2.2. In terms of Rules 20-A and 20-B, the State Bank had the discretion 
to continue the service of an employee for the purpose of continuance and 
conclusions of the departmental proceedings. The High Court was, 
therefore, clearly in error in holding order of dismissal from service to 
be bad. (1090-G] 
E 
State Bank of India v. A.N. Gupta and Ors., [1997] 8 SCC 60, 
p 
distinguished, 
State Bank of India v. C.B. Dha/l, [1998] 2 SCC 544, relied on. 
3. A Bank officer is required to exercise higher standards of honesty 
and integrity. It is no defence available to say that there was no loss or 
profit resulted in case, when the officer/employee acted without authority. 
G 
The very discipline of an organization more particularly a Bank is 
dependant upon each of its officers and officers acting and operating 
within their allotted sphere. Acting beyond one's authority is by itself a 
breach of discipline and is a misconduct. The charges against the employee H 
1086 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A were not causal in nature and were serious. That being so, the plea about 
.. ....,. 
absence of loss is also sans substance. [1091-A, B, CJ 
Disciplinary Authority-cum-Regional Manager v. Nikunja Bihari Patnaik, 
[1996) 9 sec 69, relied on. 
B 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5364 of2005. 
From the J

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