STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS versus HARBANS LAL

Citation: [2000] 3 S.C.R. 955 · Decided: 03-05-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.N. KHARE, S.N. PHUKAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

~ 
-
~ 
..,, 
STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS. 
v. 
HARBANS LAL 
MAY3, 2000 
[V.N. KHARE AND S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.] 
Service Law : 
Sastry Award-Paragraph 521 ( JO)(b )-Bipartite Settlement/agreement 
dated 17. 9.1984 between State Bank of India and All India SB! Staff F edera-
tion-Clause 12(iii)-Suspension-Clerk-cum-Cashier in State Bank of 
India-Misconduct-Suspension-Punishment-Stoppage of two incn!ments and 
disallowed salary during period of suspension-Writ petition before High 
Cou11 by employee praying to issue directions to Bank to pay full salary for 
suspension period in accordance with Sastry Award and to give all other 
benefits of increments, pay, revision, allowances etc.-No prayer for quashing 
the order of punishment-High Gourt holding order of suspension illegal and 
void on the assumption that as per Sastry Award no suspension order could 
have been passed before issuance of charge-sheet-Held, by clause 12(iii) of 
the Settlement, the expression 'pending such inquiry' in paragraph 521( JO)(b) 
of Sastry Award was clarified and further modified to the effect that where 
disciplinary action is proposed or contemplated, an employee can be sus-
pended and there is no need for issue of any charge-sheet-View taken by High 
Court not correct. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6479 of 1998. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.3.98 of the Punjab and Haryana 
High Comt in C.W.P. No. 7292 of 1997. 
Harish N. Salve, Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, Rajiv Kapur, Sanjay Kapur and 
Ms. Shubhra Kapur for the Appellants. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
Bhupinder Kakar, Dinesh Verma and R.D. Upadhy,ay for the Respond-
G 
ent. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
The respondent herein is an employee of State Bank of India. On 3rd 
September 1982 he was appointed as a Clerk-cum-Cashier. It appears certain 
H 
955 
956 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2000] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
acts of misconduct committed by the respondent came into light with the 
"' 
result on 29th November, 1990 he was suspended pending contemplated 
enquiry. In the year 1996, respondent filed a petition under Article 226 of 
the Constitution of India before the Punjab and Haryana High Court challeng-
ing the order of suspension and for a direction for payment of salary for the 
B 
period when he was placed under suspension. The said writ petition was 
dismissed. However, a direction was issued to the appellant-Bank to complete 
the disciplinary enquiry before 31st August, 1996. Accordingly, the depart-
mental enquiry was concluded and an order was passed by the disciplinary 
)" .. 
authority stopping three increments and also disallowing salary during the 
period of suspension. The respondent thereafter preferred an appeal before 
c 
the appellate authority against the aforesaid punishment. The appellate author-
ity partly allowed the appeal to the extent that instead of three, two increments 
were allowed to be stopped. The respondent thereafter filed a second petition 
under Article 226 of the Constitution. The prayer contained in the writ 
petition was to issue a direction to the appellant-Bank to pay full salary for 
>-
D 
the suspended period in accordance with the provisions of Sastry Award as 
adopted by the appellant-Bank and for issue of further direction to the 
appellant-Bank to give all the benefits of increments, pay, revision, allowance 
etc., as admissible under the Rules. It is to be noted that in this writ petition 
there was no prayer for quashing the order of punishment as well as the 
E 
appellate order to the extent relief was refused to the respondent. However, 
the High Court took the view· that in view of Sastry Award as adopted by 
"< 
the appellant-Bank, no order of suspension could have been issued before 
issue of the charge~sheet. It is only on this premise the High Court found that 
the order placing the respondent under suspension was illegal and void and, 
therefore, the respondent was entitled to salary during the period he remained 
F 
under suspension before the issue of charge-sheet. It is against the said 
decision, the appellant is in appeal before us. 
.... 
The short question that ruises in this case is whether the appellant-Bank 
could have suspended the respondent before issuing a charge-sheet as per 
G 
Sastry award. Paragraph 521(10)(b) of the Sastry Award reads .~s under : 
"Pending such inquiry he may be suspended, but if on the conclusion 
of the enquiry it is decided to take no action against him he shall be 
deemed to ha

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