2005 (8) TMI 352 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether continuation of the proceedings initiated against Shri Snigdha Kanti Bagchi (hereinafter referred to as the employee ) after the data of his superannuation was illegal without jurisdiction? Held that - Appeal allowed. In terms of Rule 20-A and 20-B the bank had the discretion to continue the service of an employee for the purpose of continuance and conclusions of the departmental proceedings. The High Court was, therefore, clearly in error in holding order of dismissal from service to be bad. Respondents 1 and 2 have highlighted the alleged withdrawal of grievances of the account-holder and the absence of any loss to the bank.

Summary

Issues:
- Continuation of disciplinary proceedings post superannuation
- Applicability of Service Rules in departmental proceedings
- Validity of dismissal order after superannuation
- Interpretation of relevant case laws

Continuation of disciplinary proceedings post superannuation:
The case involved a dispute regarding the legality of continuing disciplinary proceedings against an employee after his superannuation date. The High Court held that the proceedings initiated post-superannuation were illegal without jurisdiction. The Bank argued that the order of dismissal was passed during the extended period of service and the employee had participated in the proceedings without questioning their legality. The Division Bench upheld the decision citing a previous case law stating that departmental proceedings cannot continue after retirement unless provided for in the Service Rules.

Applicability of Service Rules in departmental proceedings:
The Bank contended that the Service Rules allowed for the extension of service beyond the age of superannuation for the completion of departmental proceedings. It was argued that Rules 20-A and 20-B of the Service Rules permitted the continuation of disciplinary proceedings even after an employee ceases to be in service, granting discretion to the Bank in such matters. The Bank emphasized that the employee had accepted subsistence allowance during the proceedings and had not challenged their legality at any point.

Validity of dismissal order after superannuation:
The respondents argued that the dismissal order after superannuation was improper, emphasizing the absence of any loss to the bank and the alleged withdrawal of grievances by the account-holder. However, the Bank highlighted the serious nature of the charges against the employee, asserting that good conduct and discipline were essential for all Bank officers, and any breach of authority constituted misconduct.

Interpretation of relevant case laws:
The judgment referred to the case law of State Bank of India v. A.N. Gupta and subsequent cases to determine the legality of continuing disciplinary proceedings post-retirement. The Court analyzed the provisions of the Service Rules and their applicability in the context of departmental proceedings, emphasizing the Bank's discretion in such matters. It was held that the High Court erred in declaring the dismissal order as bad, as the extension of service was granted to facilitate the completion of the proceedings, and the employee's participation without challenging the proceedings conferred jurisdiction.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench, allowing the appeal without any order as to costs.