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

SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J.

The State Bank of India and its officers have filed the Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment dated 22.3.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition (CWP No. 18940 of 2001) filed by the respondent was allowed, the order of his removal from service passed by the Appointing Authority was set aside and the matter remitted to it to pass the order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the respondent to show cause against the proposed punishment and take a decision in accordance with law.

We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and gone through the impugned order.

Undisputedly, in the present case the Disciplinary Authority sent the enquiry report against the respondent with recommendation for removal of the respondent from service to the Appointing Authority and the Appointing Authority without issuing any show cause notice to the respondent, passed the order of removal. The learned Single Judge, while referring to Rule 68(3)(iii) of the State Bank of India Service Rules and relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State Bank of India v. Ranjit Kumar Chakraborty, 2009 (7) SLR 347, where the Supreme Court, while dealing with the very same provision, has held that the Appointing Authority cannot pass the order of removal from service of the respondent on the recommendation of the Disciplinary Authority without issuing a show cause notice against the proposed punishment. In this regard, it has been observed as under:-

“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 ab initio. 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.”

The learned counsel for the appellants could not controvert the aforesaid legal and factual position. Thus, we do not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge.

No merit. Dismissed.