NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has said that an employee can't be subjected to disciplinary proceeding, if he has retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation or after the extended period of service.
SC Rules: Disciplinary Actions Invalid Post Superannuation or Extended Service
A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan also said a departmental proceeding is not initiated merely on issuance of a show cause notice, but it is initiated only when a chargesheet is issued because that is the date of application of mind on the allegations levelled against an employee by the competent authority.
With this observations, the court dismissed a plea by State Bank of India against a judgment of the Jharkhand High Court, which quashed an order of termination issued against Navin Kumar Sinha.
In the case, the High Court held that the disciplinary proceeding was initiated after his superannuation, including the extended period of service. It was alleged the employee sanctioned loans in favour of his relatives in deviation of banking norms.
SBI Directed to Expedite Release of Retired Employee’s Pending Dues
The bench also noted the respondent employee had actually superannuated from service in SBI on December 26, 2003 on completion of 30 years of service but his service was extended prior thereto on August 05, 2003 from December 27, 2003 to October 01, 2010. But after October 01, 2010 there was no further extension of service.
While upholding the HC's order, the bench said disciplinary proceeding against the respondent was not initiated on August 18, 2009 when the first notice to show cause was issued but was initiated only on March 18, 2011 when the disciplinary authority issued the charge memo to him.
The SBI's counsel claimed it was the case of the employee himself before the enquiry officer, disciplinary authority as well as before the appellate authority that he was due to superannuate on October 30, 2012. He also did not plead either before the said authorities or before the High Court that he had ceased to be in service of SBI from October 01, 2010 and therefore the disciplinary proceeding initiated thereafter on March 18, 2011 was void-ab-initio. As such, it said, the High Court was not justified in accepting the challenge to the order of penalty on a completely different ground.
"We are afraid 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.
Referring to the rules, the bench said, subsisting disciplinary proceeding i.e. one initiated before superannuation of the delinquent officer may be continued post superannuation by creating a legal fiction of continuance of service of the delinquent officer for the purpose of conclusion of the disciplinary proceeding (in this case as per Rule 19(3) of the Service Rules).
"But no disciplinary proceeding can be initiated after the delinquent employee or officer retires from service on attaining the age of superannuation or after the extended period of service," the bench said.
After dismissing the appeal, the court directed the SBI to release all the service dues of the employee expeditiously and not later than six weeks.
![Order to appoint One Man Committee of Justice (Retd.) Lokur for the Prevention of Stubble Burning Kept in Abeyance by SC itself [READ ORDER]](/secure/uploads/2020/10/lj_8849_Order_to_appoint.jpeg)
