LexSTATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS. ETC. versus S. VIJAYA KUMAR & ORS. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D STAIB BANK OF INDIA & ORS. ETC. v. S. VIJAYA KUMAR & ORS. ETC. JULY 18, 1990 [L.M. SHARMA AND N.M. KASLIWAL, JJ.) State Bank of India Act, 1955 /State Bank of India (Supervising Staff) Service Rules. 1975 !State Bank of India General Regulations 1955-Sections 43, 49, 50( 1)/Regulation 55(2)(a)-Order of dismissal not to be passed by an authority lower than the appointing authority. A common question of law viz., whether an order of dismissal against an employee, could validly be passed by an authority lower than the appointing authority of the Bank, arises for determination in these three appeals, two by the State Bank of India and the third by an employee. Respondent, Vijaya Kumar in Civil Appeal 3392 of 1990, was appointed as Probationary Officer by an order of the Executive Committee of the Central Board of the State Bank of India. He was chargesheeted for gross irregularities and corrupt practices and was dismissed from service by an order passed by the Chief General E Manager of the Bank, whereupon, be filed a writ petition before the Andhra Pradesh High Court, challenging the order of dismissal passed against him. A Division Bench of the High Court heard the writ peti- tion, alongwith writ appeal No. 141of1986 (involving a similar point). The High Court allowed the writ· petition. The State Bank being aggrieved by the said order has tiled this appeal after obtaining special F leave. T. Dayakar Rao, respondent in Civil Appeal No. 3393 of 1990 was appointed as a Clerk in the State Bank in October, 1962 and while he was working as a Bank Manager be was chargesbeeted for irregularities committed by him during the period from 1.9.1979 to 14.6.80. He was G dismissed under orders of the Chief General Manager being the disci- plinary authority. Mr. Rao filed a writ petition in the High Court and the High Court allowed the writ petition following its decision in writ appeal No. 141 of 1986. Being aggrieved the State Bank has filed the instant appeal with special leave of the Court. H Civil Appeal No. 3394 of 1990 has been tiled-by an employee A.K. 398 S.B.I. v. S. VUAYA KUMAR 399 Soundararajan, who was appointed as.Tec:bnlcal Oftieer by the Eitecu•· A tive Committee of the C~ntral Board of the Bank. It was specifically "' mentioned in the Order of appointment that Sbrl Soundararajan would be governed by the State Bank of Iildia (Officers & Assistants) Service Rules. Sbri Sonndararajan was cbargesbeeted and diSOlissed under orders passed by the Chief General Manager. Thereupon he filed a Writ petition in the High Court challenging his order of dlSmlssal. Learned' B ../ Single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petition; The Bank filed- ~. an appeal before the Division Bench. The Division Bench in this case -1 took in!O consideration an a_mendment made in Regulation 55 by a resolution dated 25.8.1988 made applicable with retrnspective errec:t. Accordingly the Division Bench allowed the appeal filed by the Bank, Aggrieved against this order. Shri Soundararajan has filed Civil Appeal 3394 of c 1990 with spec:ial leave. >-· The contention urged by the employees Is that the Chief General Manager, being a lower authority than the Exec:utive Committee, he had no competence to pass the· order of dismissal whereas the Bank contends that the Chief General Manager bad, by virtue of the amend- D ment of Regulation 5$(2)(a) made retrospec:tively, become the appoint- ing authority of employees ii;. question and as such the orders of dis- missal passed by him against the employees long after the amendment are valid • -y . Allowing the appeals by tlie State Bank and remanding the two E cases to the High Court and directing that the appeal by Soundararajan· be listed for fmal hearing, this Court, It HELD: The hallinark or status Is the attachinent to a legal' rela-· tionship of rights and duties Imposed by the public law and not by mere agreement by the parties. Emolument of the Government servant and, F ~>- his terms of service are governed by statute or statutory rule which may be unilaterally altered by the Government without tlie consent. of the employee. [411F-G] Under Article 311(1) of the Constitution. the words used are "liy which he was appointed". In regalatlon 55(2)(a) there are Ill> sllch G words "by which be was appointed" and In Its place the oilly right" guaranteed Is that the employee shall not be dismissed liy an autliorlty
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.