THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ANR. versus SHRI BIJOY KUMAR MISHRA

Citation: [1997] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 214 · Decided: 24-09-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.S. VERMA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, 
ST ATE BANK OF INDIA AND ANR. 
v. 
SHRI BIJOY KUMAR MISHRA 
SEPTEMBER 24, 1997 
[J.S. VERMA, CJ. AND B.N. KIRPAL, J.] 
Service /aw-Probationer-Termination of Service-Continuation of 
C probationer in service beyond the maximum period of probation fixed by the 
rules without any express order of confirmation-Whether amounts to deemed 
confirmation-Reid, deemed confirmation is permissible only when it follows 
from positive act of the employers permilling employee to continue to work 
even after completion of maximum period of probation-Probationer remaining 
absent from duty for a long time during the period of probation as also 
D thereafter-There was no occasion for the employer-Bank to allow him to 
continue to work after completion of his probation period-Hence, termination 
of his service held valid-State Bank of India Officers (Determination of 
Terms and Conditions of Services) Order, 1979-Paras 15 and I 6. 
The respondent was appointed as a Probationery Officer in a Bank on 
B 24-10-1980. He joined duty on 15-12-1980 and his period of probation 
commenced from that date. The respondent unauthorisedly remained absent 
from duty from 2-4-1981 for a long period and the last date of his presence 
on duty was in the first week of August 1983. Thereafter, he was absent till 
the year 1988. 
F 
G 
H 
The maximum period of probation under the Service Rules was three 
years, which expired in his case on 14-12-1983, when he was admittedly absent 
from duty. From May 1984 to 1988 he was not even in touch with the Bank. 
Hence, on 4-10-1988, the Bank issued an order of termination of his service. 
The respondent filed a Writ Petition, challenging the 'lrder of 
termination. The High Court quashed the termination order on the ground 
that on the expiry of the maximum permissible period of probation, the 
respondent was deemed to have been confirmed on the post. Hence, this appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
214 
C.G.M.S.B.I. v. B.K. MISHRA 
215 
HELD: 1.1 The deemed confirmation is inferred from the employer's A 
conduct and is permissible only when it follows from the positive act of the 
employer permitting the employee to contin.ue to work on the post even after 
completion of the maximum period of probation permitted under the Service 
Rules. [221-B] 
B 
State of Punjab v. Dharam Singh, (19681 3 SCR 1, explained and 
distinguished and Municipal Corporation, Raipur v. Ashok Kumar Mishra, 
[1991) 3 sec 325, distinguished. 
Samsher Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr., [1974] 2 SCC 831, relied 
on. 
Kedar Nath Bahl v. State of Punjab, [1974] SCC 21; Jai Kishan v. 
Commissioner of Police and Anr., [1995) Supp. 3 SCC 364 and State of Punjab 
v. Baldev Singh Khosla, [1996] 9 SCC 190, referred to. 
1.2. The continuance in employment after the. maximum period of 
probation is consistent only with confirmation, and that follows from the 
employer's conduct of permitting the employee to continue to work on that 
post after the maximum period of probation. The employee in the present case 
c 
D 
was absent from duty from a date much prior to the expiry of the maximum 
period of probation and remained absent even thereafter for a long time. There E 
was no occasion for the employer to allow the employee/respondent to continue 
to work on the post after the expiry of the maximum period of the probation 
because he was absent and was not working on the post at the time of the 
expiry of the period of probation. There was no such conduct of the employer, 
permitting respondent to continue in service and as such there is no foundation F 
for argument of deemed confirmation. [220-C-E) 
.. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2633 of 1992. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.11.91 of the Orissa High Court G 
in O.J.C. No. 4075 of 1988. 
H.N. Salve, Sanjay Kapur, Rajiv Kapur, Nikhil Sakhardande and M.K. 
Michael for the Appellants. 
K.K. Venugopal, San jay Moni Tripathi and Ms. Rani Jethmalani for the H 
216 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A Respondent. 
The Judgement of the Court was delivered by 
VERMA, CJI. The respo!ident, Bijoy Kumar Mishra was appointed as 
a probationary Officer in the State Bank of India and posted at Jharsuguda 
B Branch in Bhubaneswar circle by an order dated 24.10.1980. The respondent 
joined duty on 15.12.1980 and his period of probation commenced from that 
date. The respondent remained unauthorisedly absent from duty from 2.4.1981 
for a long

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