STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS.  [APPELLANT(S)] Vs. NAVIN KUMAR SINHA  [RESPONDENT(S)]

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1279 OF 2024

(2JB, ABHAY S. OKA and UJJAL BHUYAN JJ., delivered by UJJAL BHUYAN, J.)

The Supreme Court of India invalidated disciplinary proceedings initiated by the State Bank of India (SBI) against an employee after his extended period of service had ended. The Court observed that such proceedings, initiated post-superannuation or after an extended service period, cannot be sustained under law.

The case involved a respondent who joined SBI as a clerk-typist in 1973, progressing to managerial roles. He was due to retire on December 26, 2003, after completing 30 years of service. However, his service was extended until October 1, 2010, for operational reasons. SBI issued a show-cause notice on August 18, 2009, but the disciplinary proceedings were formally initiated on March 18, 2011, through a charge memo—well after his extended service period had ended.

The respondent challenged the proceedings as void ab initio, arguing that they violated Rule 19(3) of the SBI Officers’ Service Rules, which only allows the continuation of proceedings initiated before an employee’s retirement. He asserted that the charge memo was issued post-retirement, rendering the proceedings invalid. The appellant-bank countered that the initiation notice in 2009 should suffice to validate the proceedings.

A bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan clarified the legal position, stating that disciplinary proceedings must be initiated before an employee’s retirement or the end of their extended service period. Referring to the precedent set in Union of India vs. K.V. Jankiraman (1991), the Court emphasized that disciplinary proceedings begin with the filing of a charge sheet, not preliminary notices. As the charge sheet was issued after the extended service period, the proceedings were deemed non-est in law.

The Court further elaborated that if disciplinary proceedings are initiated before an employee’s retirement, the employee is deemed to have continued in service for the purpose of concluding those proceedings. However, no new proceedings can be initiated after superannuation or the end of an extended service period.

The judgment dismissed the appeal by SBI and directed the bank to release all pending dues to the respondent within six weeks. The Court reaffirmed that disciplinary actions must strictly adhere to the rules governing service tenure to ensure fairness and legality. This decision reinforces the principle that legal frameworks governing employment must be respected, particularly in disciplinary matters, to protect the rights of retired or superannuated employees.