No disciplinary action after employee retires: SC-CA
Upholds Jharkhand High Court verdict, orders SBI to release dues
CA 1279 0f 2024 SBI vs Navin Kumar Sinha
The Supreme Court ruled that no disciplinary proceedings can be initiated against a delinquent employee who has retired after reaching the age of superannuation or after an extended period of service.
Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan explained that a departmental proceeding begins only when a chargesheet is issued, not merely on the issuance of a show-cause notice, as the chargesheet marks the competent authority’s formal consideration of the allegations.
The court rejected a plea by the State Bank of India (SBI) against the Jharkhand High Court’s judgment, which quashed the dismissal of employee Navin Kumar Sinha.
The HC noted that disciplinary proceedings were initiated after his superannuation, including the extended period of service. It was alleged that Sinha sanctioned loans to his relatives, deviating from banking norms.
The apex court noted that the employee superannuated on December 26, 2003, after 30 years of service. His service was further extended to October 1, 2010. However, there was no further extension after October 1, 2010.
Upholding the HC’s order, the bench said that the disciplinary proceeding against the respondent began on March 18, 2011, with the issuance of the charge memo, not on August 18, 2009, when the first show-cause notice was issued.
The SBI’s counsel argued that the employee had stated before the inquiry officer, disciplinary authority and appellate authority that he was due to retire on October 30, 2012. He did not claim before these authorities or the high court that he had ceased to be in SBI’s service from October 1, 2010, making the disciplinary proceedings initiated on March 18, 2011, void ab initio. Therefore, the HC was not justified in accepting the challenge to the penalty order on a different ground.
“We cannot accept such a contention on behalf of the appellants. Where the disciplinary proceeding itself is without jurisdiction, upholding the same on the specious plea that it was not challenged on the ground of lack of jurisdiction would be tantamount to giving imprimatur to a patently illegal proceeding,” the bench said.
After reviewing the rules, the SC said that a subsisting disciplinary proceeding initiated before an officer’s superannuation may continue after retirement by creating a legal fiction of continued service for concluding the proceeding, as per Rule 19(3) of the Service Rules.
“But no disciplinary proceeding can be initiated after an employee retires upon reaching the age of superannuation or after an extended period of service,” it said.
0 Comments