Facts:
The respondent, an officer of the State Bank of India (SBI), was subjected to disciplinary proceedings after his superannuation, with the penalty of dismissal from service being imposed. The Single Bench of the High Court held that the disciplinary proceedings initiated after the extended service period were void ab initio, and set aside the penalty order. This was upheld by the Division Bench, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The appellants argued that the disciplinary proceedings were valid as they were initiated before the respondent’s superannuation as per Rule 19(3) of the SBI Officers’ Service Rules. They claimed that the respondent’s extended period of service implied continuance in service until disciplinary proceedings concluded. They relied on the respondent’s acceptance of subsistence allowances and his acknowledgment of continued service until October 2012.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The respondent contended that the disciplinary proceedings initiated on 18.03.2011 were post-superannuation (01.10.2010) and therefore void ab initio. The respondent emphasized the absence of rules permitting proceedings after retirement without prior initiation during service.
Issues of the Judgment:
- Whether disciplinary proceedings initiated after the respondent’s superannuation on 01.10.2010 were valid under Rule 19(3) of the SBI Officers’ Service Rules.
- Whether the appellant bank was justified in imposing the penalty of dismissal after the respondent had retired from service.
Observations/Findings by the Supreme Court:
- Disciplinary proceedings against the respondent were initiated on 18.03.2011, after his extended period of service ended on 01.10.2010.
- The initiation of disciplinary proceedings after superannuation violated established principles and rules, as confirmed by precedents in cases like Rajinder Lal Capoor and M.B. Motwani.
- Payment of subsistence allowance or the respondent’s own statements about later retirement dates do not alter the cessation of the master-servant relationship after 01.10.2010.
- Rule 19(3) of the SBI Service Rules allows only for the continuation of proceedings initiated before superannuation but does not permit new proceedings post-retirement.
Principle of the Case:
Disciplinary proceedings must be initiated before the cessation of service, including any extended period. Any proceedings initiated after superannuation are void ab initio, as the master-servant relationship ceases upon retirement unless continued through a legal fiction established by pre-existing proceedings.
Final Order:
The appeal was dismissed. The appellants were directed to release all service dues of the respondent within six weeks.
Impact on Public Law and Order:
This judgment reinforces the boundaries of employer authority post-retirement, ensuring that disciplinary actions are not misused to harass retired employees. It upholds the sanctity of retirement provisions, fostering trust between employees and institutions. By emphasizing adherence to rules, it enhances accountability and transparency in employment practices, contributing positively to public law and order.
Case Citation:
Supreme Court of India, State Bank of India & Ors. v. Navin Kumar Sinha, Civil Appeal No. 1279 of 2024, Judgment Date: November 19, 2024.
