B. R. Saini Petitioner v. State Bank Of India And Others S

K. Kannan, J (oral).

1. The only point involved in this case for consideration is whether in terms of Rule 68(3)(iii) of the State Bank of India Service Rules, the appointing authority could issue an order of removal from service purporting to act on the recommendation of the disciplinary authority without serving a notice to show cause against the removal. The relevant rule would require to be reproduced to consider whether such a right exists for a delinquent employee to demand and secure a notice to show cause against the proposed punishment of removal from service.

68(3)(iii) If the Disciplinary Authority, having regard to its finding on all or any of the article of charge, is of the opinion that any of the penalties specified in rule 67 should be imposed on the officer it shall, notwithstanding anything contained in sub rule (4), make an order imposing such penalty.

Provided that where the Disciplinary Authority is of the opinion that the penalty to be imposed is any of the penalties specified in clauses (e), (f), (g), (h), (i) & (j) of rule 67 and if it is lower in rank to the Appointing Authority in respect of the category of officers to which the officer belongs, it shall submit to the Appointing Authority the records of the enquiry specified in clause (xxi)(b) of sub rule (2), together with its recommendations regarding the penalty that may be imposed and the Appointing Authority shall make an order imposing such penalty as it considers in its opinion appropriate.”

2. In this case, the contention is that the enquiry officer submitted a report on 12.10.1999 and the disciplinary authority forwarded the recommendation on 12.1.2000 on the basis of which the order of removal was issued by the appointing authority on 22.1.2000 This order was upheld by the appellate authority on 30.7.2001 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court in State Bank of India v. Ranjit Kumar Chakraborty 2009 (7) SLR 347 where the Supreme Court was dealing with the very same provision of Rule 68(3) to hold that whenever the rule was silent as regards a prior hearing before a punishment is imposed, the rules of natural justice must be read into it and the order of dismissal passed without affording such opportunity would be against the principles of natural justice and would be void abinitio. The above said judgment is squarely attracted and I would find, therefore, the impugned orders are not valid in law and would require to be quashed. The matter however, is remitted to the Appointing Authority namely General Manager being arrayed as respondent No. 3 in the writ petition for affording to the petitioner an opportunity of hearing to show cause against the proposed punishment of removal from service and take a decision in accordance with law.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner would have crossed the age of superannuation by now. The petitioner shall be paid 50% of the entitlement for the period when he was kept out of service. The entitlement or otherwise of the full benefits shall abide by the ultimate decision that is taken after issuing a show cause notice to the petitioner and when a decision is taken in the manner directed above.

4. The writ petition is allowed on the above terms.