STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS versus KAMAL KISHORE PRASAD

Citation: [2023] 1 S.C.R. 893 · Decided: 09-01-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KRISHNA MURARI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
893
893
STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS.
v.
KAMAL KISHORE PRASAD
(Civil Appeal No. 175 of 2023)
JANUARY 09, 2023
[KRISHNA MURARI AND BELA M. TRIVEDI, JJ.]
Service Law – SBIOSR, 1992 – Rules 19(1) & 19(3) –
Dismissal from Service – Respondent was dismissed from service as
per order dated 11.08.1999 by the Appointing Authority – Writ
petition by the respondent – Single Bench of the High Court by
order dated 26.03.2003 set aside the order of the dismissal –
Division Bench of the High Court stayed the operation of order
passed by the Single Bench, however, finally the LPA was dismissed
on 22.04.2010 – Meanwhile, respondent attained the age of
superannuation on 30.11.2009 – SLP filed by the appellant-bank
was allowed with the direction to the Appointing Authority to take
appropriate decision – Pursuant thereto, the Appointing Authority
issued a show-cause notice to the respondent – After granting
personal hearing, the penalty of dismissal from service from
11.08.1999 was imposed – Respondent again approached High
Court, which allowed the petition and set aside the order of dismissal
– On appeal, held: Order dated 26.03.2003 of Single Bench setting
aside the order of dismissal passed by the Appointing Authority
having been stayed by the Division Bench, the respondent could
not be deemed to have continued in service, and also when he had
attained the age of superannuation on 30.11.2009 – Thereafter,
the order of Division Bench dated 22.04.2010 passed in the LPA
was set aside by Supreme Court while allowing the appeal filed by
the Appellant-Bank vide the order dated 25.11.2013, again it could
not be said that the respondent was continued in service, till he
attained the age of superannuation – Order of Appointing Authority
dismissing the respondent from service after granting opportunity
of hearing to the respondent was in consonance with the direction
given by Supreme Court and could not be said to be arbitrary illegal
or in violation of Rule 19(3) of the said Rules – Impugned order of
the High Court setting aside the order of dismissal set aside.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The disciplinary proceedings against the
respondent were already initiated and had stood concluded,
   [2023] 1 S.C.R. 893
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
894
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 1 S.C.R.
culminating into dismissal from service as per the order dated
11.08.1999 passed by the Appointing Authority. The said order
was challenged by the respondent by filing the Writ Petition,
which came to be allowed by the Single Bench on 26.03.2003
whereby the order of dismissal was set aside, nonetheless the
Appellant-Bank having preferred the LPA No. 378 of 2003, the
Division Bench had stayed the operation and implementation of
the said order passed by the Single Bench on 09.05.2003. The
said LPA came to be dismissed on 22.04.2010, in the meantime
on 30.11.2009, the respondent attained the age of superannuation
i.e., during the time, when the operation of the order of Single
Bench was stayed. Thus, the order of Single Bench setting aside
the order of dismissal passed by the Appointing Authority having
been stayed by the Division Bench, the respondent could not be
deemed to have continued in service, and also when he had
attained the age of superannuation on 30.11.2009. Thereafter,
the order of Division Bench dated 22.04.2010 passed in the LPA
378 of 2003 having been set aside by this Court while allowing
the appeal filed by the Appellant-Bank vide the order dated
25.11.2013, again it could not be said that the respondent was
continued in service, till he attained the age of superannuation.
[Para 11][899-D-G]
2. It was only pursuant to the direction given by this Court
vide the order dated 25.11.2013, the Appointing Authority was
expected to hear the respondent and pass appropriate order.
This Court had kept all the contentions of all the parties open.
Hence the Appointing Authority after issuing show-cause notice
and granting opportunity of hearing to the respondent had passed
the order imposing the penalty of “Dismissal from Service” w.e.f.
11.08.1999, i.e., from the date when the first order of dismissal
was passed by the Appointing Authority. Since all the contentions
were kept open by this Court while allowing the appeal filed by
the Appellant-Bank, as such no affirmative action was expected
from the Appellant- Bank, as sought to be submitted by the learned
counsel for the respondent. The said order of Appointing
Authority dismissing the respondent fr

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