Service Law: Minor penalty – Censure – Effect of – Respondent, employed with appellant-bank, was interviewed for promotion by the Interview Committee– In the meantime, disciplinary authority initiated departmental action against the respondent – His explanation was called for and charge-sheet was issued – In view of pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, the promoting authority after considering the recommendations of the Interview Committee issued a select list but the result of the respondent was kept in a sealed cover – The charge-sheet subsequently resulted in a punishment of censure to the respondent and the promotion was not given effect to – Whether even if there is a minor penalty of the nature of censure, the sealed cover recommendation of the promoting authority cannot be given effect to – Held: The earlier judicial pronouncements do give rise to the conclusion that the censure having been imposed albeit the least of the minor penalty, a recommendation of the sealed cover procedure cannot be given effect to for promotion – This is also in conformity with what the relevant rules provide as under the State Bank of India (Supervising Staff) Service Rules ‘censure’ is mentioned as the first ‘minor penalties’ in s.2 dealing with ‘disciplinary and appeal’ – The staff Circular No.118 provides that once a disciplinary proceeding has been contemplated provided that the prima facie case against the officer (which is apparent from the ultimate penalty imposed) the sealed cover procedure should be adopted – However, where the said departmental proceedings end with the imposition of a minor penalty even like a censure, the recommendations of the selection committee in favour of an employee, kept in a sealed cover, will not be given effect to and his case may be considered only in the next promotion immediately thereafter – In the instant case, if punishment would not have been ultimately imposed, the question of giving effect to the result of the sealed cover procedure would have arisen – However, the charge-sheet issued resulted in a punishment of censure and the departmental appeal against the same was dismissed making that aspect final – The consequence was that the sealed cover was not given effect in terms of the rules – State Bank of India (Supervising Staff) Service Rules – Staff Circular No.118.
State of M.P. & Anr. v. I.A. Qureshi (1998) 9 SCC 261; and Union of India & Ors. v. A.N. Mohanan (2007) 5 SCC 425 : [2007] 5 SCR 279 – relied on.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.