# STATE BANK OF PATIALA AND ANOTHER v. RAM NIWAS BANSAL (DEAD) THROUGH LRS - **Citation:** [2014] 3 S.C.R. 984 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 2014-03-03 - **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 239 of 2003 - **Bench:** H.L. Gokhale, Dipak Misra - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/state-bank-of-patiala-and-another-v-ram-niwas-bansal-dead-through-lrs-29816 - **Pages:** 42 ## Headnote SERVICE LAW: C Disciplinary proceedings - Punishment of dismissal from service on 23.4.1985 - Full Bench of High Court ordered reinstatement on the ground that non-supply of enquiry report had caused serious prejudice to the delinquent employee and on that basis set aside the order of punishment and directed 0 the disciplinary authority to grant an opportunity to the employee to reply to enquiry report and pass appropriate orders after granting personal hearing to him - The Bank completed the disciplinary proceedings and passed an order of dismissal with retrospective effect - Challenged - Held: The direction of Full Bench of High Court for reinstatement was a E direction for reinstatement for the purpose of holding a fresh enquiry from the stage of furnishing the report and no more - The Bank passed an order of dismissal on 22.11.2001 with effect from 23. 4. 1985 - On the face of the said order, it is absolutely unacceptable that the Bank in 2001 can pass an F order with effect from 23. 4. 1985 which would amount to annulment of the earlier judgment of the Full Bench of High Court - When on the date of non-furnishing of the enquiry report, the delinquent officer was admittedly not under suspension, but was in service, fie would continue in service G till he is dismissed from service in accordance with law or superannuated in conformity with the Regulations - The order of removal cannot be made retrospective. H 984 STATE BANK OF PATIALA v. RAM NIWAS BANSAL 985 (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. STATE BANK OF PAT/ALA (OFFICERS') SERVICE A REGULATIONS, 1979: Regulation 19(1), provisos - Date of superannuation - Entitlement to back wages - Whether till the date of superannuation or till the date of dismissal - Held: The first B proviso to Regulation 19(1) states that the period of service can be extended by the discretion of the competent authority and such extension has to be desirable in the interest of the Bank - Unless an extension is granted by a positive or an affirmative act by the competent authority, an officer of the C Bank retires on attaining age of 58 years or upon the completion of 30 years of service, whichever occurs first - Order of dismissal was passed on 22. 11.2001 while the employee completed 30 years of service on 25.2.1992 - The claim for grant of full salary for the whole period till the order of removal is, therefore, not sustainable as the officer stood D superannuated on completion of 30 years - His continuance by virtue of the order passed by the High Court has to be treated as a deemed continuance for the purposes of finalization of the disciplinary proceeding only. E The delinquent employee was bank officer in the appellant-bank. He was charge-sheeted in the year 1980. for certain financial irregularities. Two supplementary. charge-sheet were also issued to him in 1981 and 1982. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report to the General F Manager of the Bank holding that certain charges had been proved, some. charges had been partly proved and some charges had not been proved. The disciplinary authority concurred with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer and gave recommendation for removal of G the delinquent officer from the Bank's service to the appointing authority in accord with the terms of Regulation 68(1 )(ii) of the State Bank of Patiala (Officers') Service Regulations, 1979. The appointing authority agreeing with the findings recorded by the Enquiry H 986 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 3 S.C.R. A Officer and the recommendations of the disciplinary authority, imposed the penalty of removal by order dated 23.4.1985. The order imposing punishment of removal and a copy of the enquiry report was sent to the delinquent who then unsuccessfully who filed an appeal B under Regulation 70 of the 1979 Regulations. He then filed writ petition before the High Court. On 22.5.1998, the Full Bench of the High Court held that non-supply of comments of the General Manager had C caused serious prejudice to the delinquent ## Text _Characters 0–39,992 of 82,893. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39992 for what follows._ [2014] 3 S.C.R. 984 A STATE BANK OF PATIALA AND ANOTHER B v. RAM NIWAS BANSAL (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. (Civil Appeal No. 239 of 2003) MARCH 3, 2014 [H.L. GOKHALE AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.] SERVICE LAW: C Disciplinary proceedings - Punishment of dismissal from service on 23.4.1985 - Full Bench of High Court ordered reinstatement on the ground that non-supply of enquiry report had caused serious prejudice to the delinquent employee and on that basis set aside the order of punishment and directed 0 the disciplinary authority to grant an opportunity to the employee to reply to enquiry report and pass appropriate orders after granting personal hearing to him - The Bank completed the disciplinary proceedings and passed an order of dismissal with retrospective effect - Challenged - Held: The direction of Full Bench of High Court for reinstatement was a E direction for reinstatement for the purpose of holding a fresh enquiry from the stage of furnishing the report and no more - The Bank passed an order of dismissal on 22.11.2001 with effect from 23. 4. 1985 - On the face of the said order, it is absolutely unacceptable that the Bank in 2001 can pass an F order with effect from 23. 4. 1985 which would amount to annulment of the earlier judgment of the Full Bench of High Court - When on the date of non-furnishing of the enquiry report, the delinquent officer was admittedly not under suspension, but was in service, fie would continue in service G till he is dismissed from service in accordance with law or superannuated in conformity with the Regulations - The order of removal cannot be made retrospective. H 984 STATE BANK OF PATIALA v. RAM NIWAS BANSAL 985 (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. STATE BANK OF PAT/ALA (OFFICERS') SERVICE A REGULATIONS, 1979: Regulation 19(1), provisos - Date of superannuation - Entitlement to back wages - Whether till the date of superannuation or till the date of dismissal - Held: The first B proviso to Regulation 19(1) states that the period of service can be extended by the discretion of the competent authority and such extension has to be desirable in the interest of the Bank - Unless an extension is granted by a positive or an affirmative act by the competent authority, an officer of the C Bank retires on attaining age of 58 years or upon the completion of 30 years of service, whichever occurs first - Order of dismissal was passed on 22. 11.2001 while the employee completed 30 years of service on 25.2.1992 - The claim for grant of full salary for the whole period till the order of removal is, therefore, not sustainable as the officer stood D superannuated on completion of 30 years - His continuance by virtue of the order passed by the High Court has to be treated as a deemed continuance for the purposes of finalization of the disciplinary proceeding only. E The delinquent employee was bank officer in the appellant-bank. He was charge-sheeted in the year 1980. for certain financial irregularities. Two supplementary. charge-sheet were also issued to him in 1981 and 1982. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report to the General F Manager of the Bank holding that certain charges had been proved, some. charges had been partly proved and some charges had not been proved. The disciplinary authority concurred with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer and gave recommendation for removal of G the delinquent officer from the Bank's service to the appointing authority in accord with the terms of Regulation 68(1 )(ii) of the State Bank of Patiala (Officers') Service Regulations, 1979. The appointing authority agreeing with the findings recorded by the Enquiry H 986 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 3 S.C.R. A Officer and the recommendations of the disciplinary authority, imposed the penalty of removal by order dated 23.4.1985. The order imposing punishment of removal and a copy of the enquiry report was sent to the delinquent who then unsuccessfully who filed an appeal B under Regulation 70 of the 1979 Regulations. He then filed writ petition before the High Court. On 22.5.1998, the Full Bench of the High Court held that non-supply of comments of the General Manager had C caused serious prejudice to the delinquent officer and there was denial of fair and reasonable opportunity and on that basis set aside the order of punishment. However, it directed the disciplinary authority to grant an opportunity to the respondent to reply to the enquiry report and pass appropriate orders after granting D personal hearing to him in accordance with law. The appellant-Bank challenged the said order before the Supreme Court. On 12.4.1999, Supreme Court directed stay of reinstatement of the respondent with the direction that the Bank would comply with the provisions of E Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It was further observed that the Bank and its functionaries would be at liberty to proceed with the enquiry in terms of the permission granted by the High Court and any decision taken would be without prejudice to the outcome F of the appeal. On 20.8.1999 the Bank filed application for modification of the order dated 12.4.1999 on the ground that Section 17-B of the Act was not applicable. On G 6.12.1999, the Supreme Court, leaving the question of law open, dismissed the appeal of Bank. The Bank in compliance with the order dated 22.5.1998 passed by the Full Bench of the High Court, sent a copy of the enquiry report to the employee wherein it was mentioned that he should appear before the disciplinary authority on the H STATE BANK OF PATIALA v. RAM NIWAS BANSAL 987 (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. date fixed for personal hearing. The respondent filed an A application CM No. 1965 of 2001 seeking clarification of the order dated 22.5.1998 with a further direction to the Bank to reinstate him in service with full back wages. During the pendency of the said application in the writ petition the appointing authority passed the order of B removal on 22.11.2001 with effect from 23.4.1985. On 23.11.2001, CM No. 1965 of 2001 was disposed of by the Full Bench by the impugned order wherein it was held that the delinquent officer was never placed under C suspension; that after the order of dismissal of his service dated 25.4.1985 was set aside by the Court on 22.5.1998, the disciplinary authority has neither concluded the disciplinary proceedings nor has it passed any other appropriate order for the reasons best known to the concerned authority. D The three issues for consideration in the instant appeal were, (i) whether the employer Bank could have, in law, passed an order of dismissal with retrospective effect; (ii) whether the delinquent officer stood E superannuated after completion of thirty years as provided under the Regulations on 25.2.1992; and (iii) whether the legal heirs of the deceased-employee are entitled to get the entire salary computed till the actual passing of the order of dismissal, that is, 22.11.2001 or F for that matter till the date of superannuation, that is, 25.2.1992. Disposing of the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. The judgment by Full Court passed on ~ 22.5.1998 had attained finality inter se parties. The Full Bench took note of the fact that the report of the enquiry officer was not furnished to the delinquent officer as a result of whi~h he was deprived of the benefit of knowing the contents of the report and submitting his version with H 988 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 3 S.C.R. A regard to the correctness of the findings of the enquiry report. The High Court opined that the delinquent officer had suffered serious prejudice. Thereafter, the Court referred to the order of punishment passed by the Managing Director which apparently showed that the B recommendations of the General Manager (Operation) were taken into consideration. The said direction of Full Court for reinstatement is a direction for reinstatement for the purpose of holding a fresh enquiry from the stage of furnishing the report and no more. The direction for c reinstatement was stayed by the Supreme Court. The Bank proceeded to comply with the order of the High Court from the stage of reply of enquiry. The High Court by the impugned order had directed payment of back wages to the delinquent officer from the date of dismissal 0 till passing of the appropriate order in the di~ciplinary proceeding/superannuation of the petitioner therein whichever is earlier. The Bank has passed an order of dismissal on 22.11.2001 with effect from 23.4.1985. On the earlier round the punishment was set aside and direction for reinstatement was passed. Thus, on the face of the E said order it is absolutely inexplicable and unacceptable that the Bank in 2001 can pass an order with effect from 23.4.1985 which would amount to annulment of the judgment of the earlier Full Bench. As has been held by the High Court in the impugned judgment that when on F the date of non-furnishing of the enquiry report the delinquent officer was admittedly not under suspension, but was in service and, therefore, he would continue in service till he is dismissed from service in accordance with law or superannuated in conformity with the G Regulations. The order of removal cannot be made retrospective. [para 27, 30) [1011-D-F; 1014-H; 1015-A-G] Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad v. B. Karunakar and Ors. (1993) 4 SCC 727: 1993 (2) Suppl. SCR 576 R. H Jeevaratnam v. State of Madras AIR 1966 SC 951: 1966 SCR STATE BANK OF PATIALA v. RAM NIWAS BANSAL 989 (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. 404 - relied on. A The Gujarat Mineral Development Corporation v. Shri P.H. Brahmbhatt (1974) 3 SCC 601: 1974 (2) SCR 128; P.H. Kalyani v. Mis. Air France, Calcutta AIR 1963 SC 1756 : 1964 SCR 104 ; Mis. Sasa Musa Sugar Works (P) Ltd. v. B Shobrati Khan AIR 1959 SC 923: 1959 Suppl. SCR 836; Management of Ranipur Colliery v. Bhuban Singh AIR 1959 SC 833: 1959 Suppl. SCR 719; R. Thiruvirkolam v. Presiding Officer and Anr. (1997) 1 SCC 9: 1996 (8) Suppl. SCR 687; Gujarat Steel Tubes Limited and Ors. v. Gujarat C Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha and Ors. (1980) 2 SCC 593: 1980 (2) SCR 146; Punjab Dairy Development Corporation Ltd. and Anr. v. Kala Singh and Ors. (1997) 6 SCC 159: 1997 (1) Suppl. SCR 235; Desh Raj Gupta v. Industrial Tribunal IV, U.P. (1991) 1 sec 249: 1990 (1) Suppl. SCR 411; Vishweshwaraiah Iron and Steel Ltd. v. Abdul Gani and Ors. D AIR 1998 SC 185: (1997) 8 SCC 713; Vishweshwaraiah Iron and Steel Ltd. v. Abdul Gani and Ors. (2002) 10 SCC 437; Pradip Chandra Parija v. Pramod Chandra Patnaik (2002) 1 SCC 1: 2001 (5) Suppl. SCR 460 ; Engineering Laghu Udyog Employees' Union v. Judge,Labour Court and E Industrial Tribunal and Anr. (2003) 12 SCC 1: 2003 (6) Suppl. SCR 253; Workmen v. Motipur Sugar Factory AIR 1965 SC 1803: 1965 SCR 588; Workmen v. Firestone Tyre & Rubber Co. of India (P) Ltd. (1973) 1 SCC 813: 1973 (3) SCR 587; Jaipur Zila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd. v. Ram Gopal F Sharma and Ors. (2002) 2 SCC 244: 2002 (1) SCR 284; Punjab Beverages (P) Ltd. v. Suresh Chand (1978) 2 SCC 144: 1978 (3) SCR 370 - referred to. 2.1. The first proviso to Regulation 19(1) states that G the period of service can be extended by the discretion of the competent authority and such extension has to be desirable in the interest of the Bank. The second proviso provides that an officer who has joined the service of the bank either as an officer or otherwise on or after 19.7.1969 H 990 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 3 S.C.R. A and attained the age of 58 years shall not be granted any further extension in service. By this proviso, the power of the competent authority in respect of officers who had joined as officers or otherwise after the cut-off date, i.e. 19.7.1969 and have attained the age of 58 years of service, B is curtailed. The delinquent officer joined the service as a clerk in the Bank on 26.2.1962 and was promoted as Grade-II Officer in 1971 and as Grade-I Officer in 1977. Even if this provision is extended to him, he could not have been granted extension of service after completion C of 58 years of age. The said officer attained the age of 58 years on 24.2.2002. Be that as it may, the grant of extension is dependent on satisfaction the conditions as laid down in the first proviso. As is seen from the earlier round of litigation, the Full Bench had quashed the 0 punishment and directed for reinstatement. In the second round in CM No. 1965 of 2000 the High Court has directed that the employee shall continue till passing of the appropriate orders in the disciplinary proceedings or superannuated as per rules. It has not commented on the validity of superannuation in the year 1992 as pleaded by E the Bank and left it to be agitated in appropriate proceeding. [Para 32] [1016-F-H; 1017-A-C] 2.2. Regulation 19(2) lays down that if the disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against an officer during F the period when he is in service, the said proceedings can continue even after his retirement at the discretion of the Managing Director and for the said limited purpose the officer shall be deemed to be in service. In the case at hand, the disciplinary proceeding was initiated against G the delinquent officer while he was in service. The first order of dismissal was passed on 23.4.1985. The said order of punishment was set aside by the High Court and the officer concerned was directed to be reinstated for the limited purpose, i.e., supply of enquiry report and to H proceed in the disciplinary proceeding from that stage. STATE BANK OF PATIALA v. RAM NIWAS BANSAL 991 (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. The said order was not interfered with by this Court. The A Bank continued the proceeding. The said continuance was in pursuance of the order of the Court. Under these circumstances, it has to be accepted that the concept of deemed continuance in service of the officer would have full play and, therefore, an order of removal could have B been passed after finalization of the departmental proceeding on 22.11.2001. The said order would not have been made retrospectively operative, but that will not invalidate the order of dismissal but it would only have prospective effect. [Paras 34, 38] [1018-C-D; 1020-G-H; c 1021•A-D] 2.3. For the purpos~ of deemed continuance, the delinquent officer would not be entitled to get any benefit for the simple reason, i.e., the continuance is only for finalisation of the disciplinary proceedings, as directed D by the Full Bench of the High Court. Hence, the effect and impact of Regulation 19(1) of the Regulations comes into full play. On a seemly construction of the first proviso, it requires an affirmative act by the competent authority, for it is an exercise of power of discretion and further the E said discretion has to be exercised where the grant of extension is deemed desirable in the interest of the Bank. As the facts would reveal, in the year 1992 the concerned officer stood removed from serifice and at that juncture to expect the Bank in law to intimate him about his date F of superannuation or to pass an order would be an incorrect assumption. The conclusion which appears logical and acceptable is that unless an extension is granted by a positive or an affirmative act by the competent authority, an officer of the Bank retires on G attaining age of 58 years or upon the completion of 30 years of service, whichever occurs first. The first proviso would have full play and it should be apposite to conclude that the delinquent officer stood superannuated on completio_n of 30 years of service on 25.2.1992. It is H 992 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 3 S.C.R. A because the conditions stipulated under the first proviso to the said Regulation deal with a conditional situation to cover certain categories of cases and require an affirmative act and in the absence of that it is difficult to hold that the delinquent officer did not retire on B completion of thirty years of service. [Para 39] [1021-EG, H; 1022-A-B, G-H; 1023-A-B] UCO Bank and Anr. v. Rajinder Lal Capoor (2007) 6 SCC 694: 2007 (7) SCR 543; Ramesh Chandra Sharma v. Punjab National Bank and Anr. (2007) 9 SCC 15: 2007 (7) C SCR 585; State Bank of India v. Ram Lal Bhaskar and Anr. (2011) 10 SCC 249: 2011 (12) SCR 1036 - relied on. 3. The order of removal from service would come into effect from the date of passing of the order, i.e., 0 22.11.2001 as it has to be prospectively operative and, therefore, as a natural corollary he remained in service from 23.4.1985 till he attained the age of superannuation, i.e., 25.2.1992 or till the end of February, 1992, being the last day of the month. The claim made by employee for E grant of full salary for the whole period till the order of removal is not sustainable as the officer stood superannuated on completion of thirty years and his continuance by virtue of the order passed by the High Court has to be treated as a deemed continuance for the purposes of finalization of the disciplinary proceeding. F During the continuance of the disciplinary proceeding the delinquent officer was not put under suspension. After the order of punishment passed by the disciplinary authority and affirmed by the appellate authority was quashed by the High Court on 22.5.1998, the concerned G officer has to be treated to be in service from his date of first removal till his date of retirement. Had the Bank brought to the notice of the Full Bench about the legal position under the Regulations, in all probability, lhe matter would have been dealt with differently. Be that as H it may, grant of salary in entirety for the period as STATE BANK OF PATIALA v. RAM NIWAS BANSAL 993 (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. determined to be the period of continuance in service A would not be apposite and similarly, the submission advanced on behalf of the Bank that payment of rupees five lacs would meet the ends of justice does not deserve acceptance. Ordinarily, the Bank would have been asked to pay fifty per cent of the back wages for the period B commencing 23.4.1985 till the end of February, 1992, with some interest but to give quietus to the controversy and, the Bank is directed to deposit a further sum of rupees five lacs with the Registrar General of the High Court within two months hence and the respondents shall be c entitled to withdraw the same. If the amount earlier deposited has not been withdrawn by the original respondent, the same shall also be withdrawn by the legal heirs. [Paras 40, 41) (1023-C-F; 1024-C-H; 1025-A] C.L. Verma v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. 1989 D Supp (2) SCC 437; A.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Ors. v. Abdul Kareem (2005) 6 SCC 36: 2005 (1) Suppl. SCR 918; A.P. SRTC and Anr. v. B.S. David Paul (2006) 2 SCC 282: 2006 (1) SCR 2006; J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. K.P. Agrawal and Anr. (2007) 2 SCC 433: 2007 (2) SCR 60 • E relied on. Case Law Reference: 1993 (2) Suppl. SCR 576 relied on Para 9 F 1966 SCR 404 relied on Para 15 1974 (2) SCR 128 referred to Para 15 1964 SCR 104 referred to Para 16 1959 Suppl. SCR 836 referred to Para 16 G 1959 Suppl. SCR 719 referred to Para 18 1996 (8) Suppl. SCR 687 referred to Para 19 1980 (2) SCR 146 referred to Para 19 H 994 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014) 3 S.C.R. A 1997 (1) Suppl. SCR 235 referred to Para 20 1990 (1) Suppl. SCR 411 referred to Para 20 (1997) 8 sec 113 referred to Para 21 B (2002) 1 o sec 437 referred to Para 22 2001 (5) Suppl. SCR 460 referred to Para 22 2003 (6) Suppl. SCR 253 referred to Para 23 1965 SCR 588 referred to Para 23 c 1973 (3) SCR 587 referred to Para 23 2002 (1) SCR 284 referred to Para 25 1978 (3) SCR 370 referred to Para 25 D 2007 (7) SCR 543 relied on Para 34 2007 (7) SCR 585 relied on Para 35 2011 (12) SCR 1036 relied on Para 37 E 1989 Supp (2) sec 437 relied on Para 39 2005 (1) Suppl. SCR 918 relied on Para 40 2006 (1) SCR 2006 relied on Para 40 F 2007 (2) SCR 60 relied on Para 40 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 239 of 2003. From the Judgment and Order dated 23.11.2001 of the G High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CM No. 1965 of 2001 in C.W.P. No. 4929 of 1986. WITH T.C. (C) No. 79 of 2013. H Vil