STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS. versus C.K. KARUNAKARAN

Citation: [2021] 9 S.C.R. 23 · Decided: 30-09-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, M.M. SUNDRESH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
23
STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS.
v.
C.K. KARUNAKARAN
(Civil Appeal No. 6821 of 2009)
SEPTEMBER 30, 2021
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL AND M. M. SUNDRESH, JJ.]
Service Law: Minor penalty – Censure – Effect of –
Respondent, employed with appellant-bank, was interviewed for
promotion by the Interview Committee– In the meantime, disciplinary
authority initiated departmental action against the respondent –
His explanation was called for and charge-sheet was issued – In
view of pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, the promoting
authority after considering the recommendations of the Interview
Committee issued a select list but the result of the respondent was
kept in a sealed cover – The charge-sheet subsequently resulted in
a punishment of censure to the respondent and the promotion was
not given effect to – Whether even if there is a minor penalty of the
nature of censure, the sealed cover recommendation of the promoting
authority cannot be given effect to – Held: The earlier judicial
pronouncements do give rise to the conclusion that the censure
having been imposed albeit the least of the minor penalty, a
recommendation of the sealed cover procedure cannot be given
effect to for promotion – This is also in conformity with what the
relevant rules provide as under the State Bank of India (Supervising
Staff) Service Rules ‘censure’ is mentioned as the first ‘minor
penalties’ in s.2 dealing with ‘disciplinary and appeal’ – The staff
Circular No.118 provides that once a disciplinary proceeding has
been contemplated provided that the prima facie case against the
officer (which is apparent from the ultimate penalty imposed) the
sealed cover procedure should be adopted – However, where the
said departmental proceedings end with the imposition of a minor
penalty even like a censure, the recommendations of the selection
committee in favour of an employee, kept in a sealed cover, will not
be given effect to and his case may be considered only in the next
promotion immediately thereafter – In the instant case, if punishment
would not have been ultimately imposed, the question of giving effect
to the result of the sealed cover procedure would have arisen –
[2021] 9 S.C.R. 23
23
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
24
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 9 S.C.R.
However, the charge-sheet issued resulted in a punishment of censure
and the departmental appeal against the same was dismissed making
that aspect final – The consequence was that the sealed cover was
not given effect in terms of the rules – State Bank of India
(Supervising Staff) Service Rules – Staff Circular No.118.
State of M.P. & Anr. v. I.A. Qureshi (1998) 9 SCC 261;
and Union of India & Ors. v. A.N. Mohanan (2007) 5
SCC 425 : [2007] 5 SCR 279 – relied on.
Case  Law Reference
(1998) 9 SCC 261
relied on
Para 8
[2007] 5 SCR 279  
relied on
Para 8
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6821
of 2009.
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.10.2008 of the High Court
of Kerala at Ernakulum in Writ Appeal being W.A. No. 1571 of 2003.
Sanjay Kapur, Ms. Megha Karnwal, V.M. Kannan, Mrs. Shubhra
Kapur, Advs. for the Appellants.
The following Order of the Court was passed :
O R D E R
The respondent was employed with the appellant-bank in the
Middle Management Grade Scale-II and his promotion to Middle
Management Grade Scale-III came up for consideration in November,
1984 when he was interviewed by the Interview Committee which made
its recommendation to the promoting authority. In the meantime, apparently
the disciplinary authority took a decision to initiate departmental action
against the respondent on 28.1.1985. His explanation was called for on
18.2.1985 and the charge-sheet was issued on 04.11.1985. In view of
the pendency of these disciplinary proceedings, the promoting authority
after considering the recommendations of the Interview Committee
issued a select list on 23.8.1985 but the result of the respondent was
kept in a sealed cover. The charge-sheet resulted in a punishment of
censure to the respondent on 28.7.1987 and thus the promotion was not
given effect to. The order of the disciplinary authority was assailed by
the respondent in departmental appeal and the same was dismissed on
13.12.1988 which attained finality.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
25
The grievance of the respondent was that despite the censure,
the sealed cover procedure having been adopted, the same shall have
been given effect to after the period of censure was over. In this behalf
the respondent filed an appeal before the Appellat

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