STATE BANK OF PATIALA AND ANOTHER versus RAM NIWAS BANSAL (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.

Citation: [2014] 3 S.C.R. 984 · Decided: 03-03-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.L. GOKHALE · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2014] 3 S.C.R. 984 
A 
STATE BANK OF PATIALA AND ANOTHER 
B 
v. 
RAM NIWAS BANSAL (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 239 of 2003) 
MARCH 3, 2014 
[H.L. GOKHALE AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.] 
SERVICE LAW: 
C 
Disciplinary proceedings - Punishment of dismissal from 
service on 23.4.1985 - Full Bench of High Court ordered 
reinstatement on the ground that non-supply of enquiry report 
had caused serious prejudice to the delinquent employee and 
on that basis set aside the order of punishment and directed 
0 the disciplinary authority to grant an opportunity to the 
employee to reply to enquiry report and pass appropriate 
orders after granting personal hearing to him - The Bank 
completed the disciplinary proceedings and passed an order 
of dismissal with retrospective effect - Challenged - Held: The 
direction of Full Bench of High Court for reinstatement was a 
E direction for reinstatement for the purpose of holding a fresh 
enquiry from the stage of furnishing the report and no more -
The Bank passed an order of dismissal on 22.11.2001 with 
effect from 23. 4. 1985 - On the face of the said order, it is 
absolutely unacceptable that the Bank in 2001 can pass an 
F order with effect from 23. 4. 1985 which would amount to 
annulment of the earlier judgment of the Full Bench of High 
Court - When on the date of non-furnishing of the enquiry 
report, the delinquent officer was admittedly not under 
suspension, but was in service, fie would continue in service 
G till he is dismissed from service in accordance with law or 
superannuated in conformity with the Regulations - The order 
of removal cannot be made retrospective. 
H 
984 
STATE BANK OF PATIALA v. RAM NIWAS BANSAL 985 
(DEAD) THROUGH LRS. 
STATE BANK OF PAT/ALA (OFFICERS') SERVICE A 
REGULATIONS, 1979: 
Regulation 19(1), provisos - Date of superannuation -
Entitlement to back wages - Whether till the date of 
superannuation or till the date of dismissal - Held: The first 
B 
proviso to Regulation 19(1) states that the period of service 
can be extended by the discretion of the competent authority 
and such extension has to be desirable in the interest of the 
Bank - Unless an extension is granted by a positive or an 
affirmative act by the competent authority, an officer of the 
C 
Bank retires on attaining age of 58 years or upon the 
completion of 30 years of service, whichever occurs first -
Order of dismissal was passed on 22. 11.2001 while the 
employee completed 30 years of service on 25.2.1992 - The 
claim for grant of full salary for the whole period till the order 
of removal is, therefore, not sustainable as the officer stood 
D 
superannuated on completion of 30 years - His continuance 
by virtue of the order passed by the High Court has to be 
treated as a deemed continuance for the purposes of 
finalization of the disciplinary proceeding only. 
E 
The delinquent employee was bank officer in the 
appellant-bank. He was charge-sheeted in the year 1980. 
for certain financial irregularities. Two supplementary. 
charge-sheet were also issued to him in 1981 and 1982. 
The Enquiry Officer submitted his report to the General 
F 
Manager of the Bank holding that certain charges had 
been proved, some. charges had been partly proved and 
some charges had not been proved. The disciplinary 
authority concurred with the findings recorded by the 
Enquiry Officer and gave recommendation for removal of G 
the delinquent officer from the Bank's service to the 
appointing authority in accord with the terms of 
Regulation 68(1 )(ii) of the State Bank of Patiala (Officers') 
Service Regulations, 1979. The appointing authority 
agreeing with the findings recorded by the Enquiry 
H 
986 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 3 S.C.R. 
A Officer and the recommendations of the disciplinary 
authority, imposed the penalty of removal by order dated 
23.4.1985. The order imposing punishment of removal 
and a copy of the enquiry report was sent to the 
delinquent who then unsuccessfully who filed an appeal 
B under Regulation 70 of the 1979 Regulations. He then 
filed writ petition before the High Court. 
On 22.5.1998, the Full Bench of the High Court held 
that non-supply of comments of the General Manager had 
C caused serious prejudice to the delinquent officer and 
there was denial of fair and reasonable opportunity and 
on that basis set aside the order of punishment. However, 
it directed the disciplinary authority to grant an 
opportunity to the respondent to reply to the enquir

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