STATE BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS versus PALAK MODI AND ANOTHER

Citation: [2012] 12 S.C.R. 628 · Decided: 03-12-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.S. SINGHVI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
• 
[2012] 12 S.C.R. 628 
STATE BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS 
v. 
PALAK MODI AND ANOTHER 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 7841-7842 of 2012) 
DECEMBER 03, 2012 
[G.S. SINGHVI AND SUDHANSU JYOTI 
MUKHOPADHAYA, JJ.] 
Service Law - Termination - Of Bank Probationary 
C 
Officers (private respondents) - Challenge to - Held: If the 
competent authority holds an inquiry for judging the suitability 
of the probationer or for his further continuance in service or 
for confirmation and such inquiry is the basis for taking 
decision to terminate his service, then the action of the 
D competent authority cannot be castigated as punitive -
However, if an allegation of misconduct constitutes the 
foundation of the action taken, the ultimate decision taken by 
the competent authority can be nullified on the ground of 
violation of the rules of natural justice - On facts, the decision 
E to dispense with the services of the private respondents was 
taken solely on the ground that they were guilty of using unfair 
means in the confirmation test which constituted a misconduct 
- However, this exercise was not preceded by an inquiry 
involving the private respondents and no opportunity was 
F 
given to them to defend themselves against the charge of use 
of unfair means - They were condemned unheard which was 
legally impermissible - Appellants to reinstate the private 
respondents and give them all consequential benefits -
However, competent authority not precluded from taking fresh 
decision in the matter of confirmation of the private 
G respondents after giving them effective opportunity of hearing 
against the allegation of use of unfair means in the 
confirmation test - State Bank of India (Officers' Service) 
Rules, 1992 - rr.15(1) and 16. 
H 
628 
STATE BANK OF INDIA v. PALAK MODI 
629 
The private respondents were appointed as A 
Probationary Officers in the appellant-bank in the year 
2006. In 2010, they were informed that they are due for 
confirmation and, were therefore, required to appear in a 
confirmation test. The private respondents appeared in 
the test, and subsequently the result thereof was 
B 
declared. The names of the private respondents did not 
figure in the result apparently because the Institute of 
Banking Personnel Selection ('IBPS'}, an independent 
expert body engaged in conducting recruitment for 
various services, which was entrusted with the task of c 
preparing the examination papers and evaluating the 
answer sheets sent a report to the Bank that some 
candidates including the private respondents were 
suspected to have used unfair means. 
The probation of the private respondents was D 
extended for three months by invoking Rule 16(2) of the 
State Bank of India (Officers' Service) Rules, 1992. 
However, prior to expiry of the extended period of 
probation, the services of the private respondents was 
terminated under Rule 16(3) of the State Bank of India 
E 
(Officers' Service) Rules, 1992. The private respondents 
challenged the termination of their services by filing writ 
petitions mainly on the grounds that the action taken by 
the concerned authorities of the Bank was arbitrary and 
violative of the rules of natural justice. They pleaded that 
F 
,during the period of probation, no one had informe,d them 
about any shortcoming, deficiency or defect in their work 
and yet their services were terminated without giving 
them notice and opportunity of hearing. The private 
respondents further pleaded that even though they had 
G 
requested the concerned officers of the Bank to disclose 
the reasons for extension of probation and termination 
of their services but no response was received from 
them. 
H 
630 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012] 12 S.C.R. 
A 
The High Court did not directly deal with the question 
whether the action taken by the General Manager was 
arbitrary, unfair and unjustified and whether in the garb 
of termination simpliciter, the concerned authority had 
penalized the private respondents on the charge of their 
B having indulged in malpractices in the confirmation test 
but held that the action taken by the appellants was 
contrary to the guidelines framed by the IBPS for 
detecting cases of use of unfair means. The High Court 
referred to paragraph 4 of the guidelines framed by the 
c IBPS and opined that after considering the report 
suggesting 'that the private respondents were suspected 
to have used unfair means in the examination, the Bank 
should have scrutinized their cases on the 

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