Service Law – SBIOSR, 1992 – Rules 19(1) & 19(3) – Dismissal from Service – Respondent was dismissed from service as per order dated 11.08.1999 by the Appointing Authority – Writ petition by the respondent – Single Bench of the High Court by order dated 26.03.2003 set aside the order of the dismissal – Division Bench of the High Court stayed the operation of order passed by the Single Bench, however, finally the LPA was dismissed on 22.04.2010 – Meanwhile, respondent attained the age of superannuation on 30.11.2009 – SLP filed by the appellant-bank was allowed with the direction to the Appointing Authority to take appropriate decision – Pursuant thereto, the Appointing Authority issued a show-cause notice to the respondent – After granting personal hearing, the penalty of dismissal from service from 11.08.1999 was imposed – Respondent again approached High Court, which allowed the petition and set aside the order of dismissal – On appeal, held: Order dated 26.03.2003 of Single Bench setting aside the order of dismissal passed by the Appointing Authority having been stayed by the Division Bench, the respondent could not be deemed to have continued in service, and also when he had attained the age of superannuation on 30.11.2009 – Thereafter, the order of Division Bench dated 22.04.2010 passed in the LPA was set aside by Supreme Court while allowing the appeal filed by the Appellant-Bank vide the order dated 25.11.2013, again it could not be said that the respondent was continued in service, till he attained the age of superannuation – Order of Appointing Authority dismissing the respondent from service after granting opportunity of hearing to the respondent was in consonance with the direction given by Supreme Court and could not be said to be arbitrary illegal or in violation of Rule 19(3) of the said Rules – Impugned order of the High Court setting aside the order of dismissal set aside. Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The disciplinary proceedings against the respondent were already initiated and had stood concluded, culminating into dismissal from service as per the order dated 11.08.1999 passed by the Appointing Authority. The said order was challenged by the respondent by filing the Writ Petition, which came to be allowed by the Single Bench on 26.03.2003 whereby the order of dismissal was set aside, nonetheless the Appellant-Bank having preferred the LPA No. 378 of 2003, the Division Bench had stayed the operation and implementation of the said order passed by the Single Bench on 09.05.2003. The said LPA came to be dismissed on 22.04.2010, in the meantime on 30.11.2009, the respondent attained the age of superannuation i.e., during the time, when the operation of the order of Single Bench was stayed. Thus, the order of Single Bench setting aside the order of dismissal passed by the Appointing Authority having been stayed by the Division Bench, the respondent could not be deemed to have continued in service, and also when he had attained the age of superannuation on 30.11.2009. Thereafter, the order of Division Bench dated 22.04.2010 passed in the LPA
378 of 2003 having been set aside by this Court while allowing the appeal filed by the Appellant-Bank vide the order dated 25.11.2013, again it could not be said that the respondent was continued in service, till he attained the age of superannuation. [Para 11][899-D-G]
2. It was only pursuant to the direction given by this Court vide the order dated 25.11.2013, the Appointing Authority was expected to hear the respondent and pass appropriate order. This Court had kept all the contentions of all the parties open. Hence the Appointing Authority after issuing show-cause notice and granting opportunity of hearing to the respondent had passed the order imposing the penalty of “Dismissal from Service” w.e.f. 11.08.1999, i.e., from the date when the first order of dismissal was passed by the Appointing Authority. Since all the contentions were kept open by this Court while allowing the appeal filed by the Appellant-Bank, as such no affirmative action was expected from the Appellant- Bank, as sought to be submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent. The said order of Appointing Authority dismissing the respondent from service after granting opportunity of hearing to the respondent was in consonance with the direction given by this Court and could not be said to be arbitrary illegal or in violation of Rule 19(3) of the said Rules. The impugned order of the High Court setting aside the said order of dismissal being under misconception of facts and law deserves to be quashed and set aside. [Para 13][900-C-F]
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.