The Supreme Court ruled that no disciplinary proceedings could be initiated against employees after their retirement.
The Supreme Court Bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan reviewed an appeal and held that disciplinary proceedings initiated post-superannuation without an enabling rule permitting such initiation are void, and Rule 19(3) of the SBI Officers’ Service Rules only allows for the continuation, not the initiation, of proceedings after retirement. Therefore, the dismissal of the respondent was invalid as the proceedings were initiated after his retirement, violating jurisdictional limits.
The Supreme Court addressed the legality of disciplinary proceedings initiated against an officer of the State Bank of India (SBI) post-superannuation, examining the interplay between service rules and precedents. The respondent, whose service was extended beyond his original superannuation date of December 26, 2003, retired on October 1, 2010, after which disciplinary proceedings were initiated on March 18, 2011, under Rule 68(1) of the SBI Officers’ Service Rules, 1992. The proceedings culminated in his dismissal on March 7, 2012. The respondent challenged the dismissal, and both the Single and Division Benches of the Jharkhand High Court held the proceedings void ab initio, prompting SBI's appeal.
The Supreme Court considered whether the disciplinary proceedings initiated post-retirement were valid under Rule 19(3) of the Service Rules, which permits the continuation of proceedings initiated before superannuation. The respondent argued that his retirement on October 1, 2010, severed the master-servant relationship, rendering the subsequent proceedings jurisdictionally flawed. SBI, however, contended that the respondent’s acceptance of post-retirement subsistence allowances evidenced continued service and justified the proceedings.
Analyzing Rule 19 of the SBI Service Rules, the Court emphasized that disciplinary proceedings initiated post-retirement without an enabling provision are invalid. The Court relied on precedents, including Rajinder Lal Capoor and Canara Bank v. D.R.P. Sundharam, which established that such proceedings must begin before retirement to continue lawfully thereafter. It distinguished between initiation and continuation of proceedings, concluding that the chargesheet issued on March 18, 2011, was beyond SBI’s jurisdiction, as the respondent had retired on October 1, 2010.
The Court reaffirmed the principle that service rules permitting post-retirement disciplinary actions must expressly allow for their initiation after cessation of service. Since Rule 19(3) permits only the continuation of pre-existing proceedings, the High Court was correct in invalidating the dismissal order. Consequently, the Court dismissed SBI’s appeal, directing the release of all pending service dues to the respondent within six weeks. This judgment underscores the jurisdictional limitations on post-retirement disciplinary actions and reinforces adherence to procedural safeguards under service regulations.
Mr. Balbir Singh, Senior Advocate represented the Appellant.
Mr. Vishwajit Singh, Senior Advocate appeared for the Respondent.
Subscribers can access the Case, including Case Analysis, Ratio Decidendi, Headnotes, Briefs, Case Research, Cited Case Laws, Case Law Cross-references, and the latest updates on Statutes, Notifications, Circulars, Guidelines, Press Releases and more.
Click on the Citation/Link to access these resources
留言