1990 (7) TMI 379 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Competence of the Chief General Manager to dismiss employees.
2. Interpretation of Regulation 55(2)(a) of the State Bank of India General Regulations, 1955.
3. Retrospective amendment of Regulation 55.
4. Applicability of Article 311 of the Constitution of India to State Bank employees.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Competence of the Chief General Manager to Dismiss Employees:
The primary issue in all the cases was whether the Chief General Manager (CGM) had the authority to dismiss employees who were originally appointed by the Executive Committee. The High Court had ruled that the CGM, being lower in rank than the Executive Committee, was not competent to pass the order of dismissal. However, the Supreme Court found that the CGM had become the appointing authority by the time the dismissal orders were passed. Therefore, the orders of dismissal were valid as they were not passed by an authority lower than the appointing authority.

2. Interpretation of Regulation 55(2)(a) of the State Bank of India General Regulations, 1955:
Regulation 55(2)(a) initially provided that no officer or employee shall be dismissed by an authority lower than the appointing authority. The Supreme Court noted that the term "appointing authority" had been redefined through various amendments to mean the authority designated as such at the time of the order or the initiation of proceedings. The Court concluded that on the dates when the dismissal orders were passed, the CGM was the appointing authority, thus validating the dismissals.

3. Retrospective Amendment of Regulation 55:
The Central Board of the State Bank had amended Regulation 55 with retrospective effect, clarifying that the appointing authority shall include the authority designated at the time of the dismissal order. The Supreme Court upheld this retrospective amendment, stating that Section 50(2)(a) of the State Bank of India Act allowed regulations to have effect from an earlier date. The Court dismissed the employees' contention that the Bank had no power to make retrospective amendments, noting that there is no vested right in such matters.

4. Applicability of Article 311 of the Constitution of India to State Bank Employees:
The employees argued that their dismissal violated Article 311 of the Constitution, which protects civil servants from being dismissed by an authority lower than the one that appointed them. The Supreme Court clarified that Article 311 applies to civil servants of the Union or State and not to employees of the State Bank. Therefore, the employees could only claim the rights conferred under Regulation 55(2)(a) and not under Article 311.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals filed by the State Bank of India in the cases of Vijaya Kumar and T. Dayakar Rao, setting aside the High Court's orders and remanding the cases for further consideration on other points. In the case of A.K. Soundararajan, the Court concluded the point regarding the appointing authority but allowed the appellant to raise other issues. The parties were directed to bear their own costs.