STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS.versusNAVIN KUMAR SINHA

                 [2024] 11 S.C.R. 799 : 2024 INSC 874

                        State Bank of India & Ors.
                                    v.
                           Navin Kumar Sinha
                       (Civil Appeal No. 1279 of 2024)
                              19 November 2024
                [Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan,* JJ.]


                            Issue for Consideration
       Issue arose as regards whether the Bank could have initiated
       disciplinary proceedings against the employee after his
       superannuation.

                                   Headnotes†
       Service law – Dismissal from service – Initiation of disciplinary
       proceeding post superannuation – Disciplinary proceeding,
       if void-ab-initio – Employee with the Bank, on completion of
       30 years was due to superannuate on 26.12.2003, however,
       was given extension until 01.10.2010 – In August 2009
       employee placed under suspension for irregularities and
       sanctioning loans in favour of his relatives in violation of
       banking norms and missing documents – In 2011 disciplinary
       proceedings initiated against the employee, and thereafter
       in 2012 penalty of dismissal from service imposed on him –
       Upheld by the appellate authority as also the reviewing
       authority – Writ petition thereagainst – Allowed by the
       High Court holding that bank had no jurisdiction to initiate
       disciplinary proceeding beyond 01.10.2010, thus, the order
       of penalty, as also the order of the appellate authority and
       reviewing authority set aside and quashed, and the Bank
       directed to extend consequential service benefits to the
       employee – Said order upheld by the Division Bench –
       Correctness:
       Held: No disciplinary proceeding can be initiated after the delinquent
       employee or officer retires from service on attaining the age of
       superannuation or after the extended period of service – Departmental
       proceeding is ordinarily said to be initiated only when a chargesheet
       is issued – Charge memo was issued to the employee in 2011 after
* Author
800                                                           [2024] 11 S.C.R.

                       Digital Supreme Court Reports


       his extension of service was over on 01.10.2010 – Employee was
       due to superannuate on 26.12.2003 apparently on completion of
       30 years of service but his service was extended, and the extended
       service of the employee came to an end on 01.10.2010 – Relationship
       of master and servant between the Bank and the employee came
       to be severed on and from 01.10.2010 – Factum of receipt of
       subsistence allowance thereafter or the employee declaring that he
       would superannuate on a later date i.e. on 30.10.2012 on attaining
       the age of 60 years would not make any difference to the legal
       and factual scenario – Thus, it is evident that employee was no
       longer in the service of the Bank post 01.10.2010 – Disciplinary
       proceeding against the employee was not initiated on 18.08.2009
       when the first notice to show cause was issued but was initiated
       only on 18.03.2011 when the disciplinary authority issued the
       charge memo to the employee – Subsisting disciplinary proceeding-
       one initiated before superannuation of the delinquent officer may
       be continued post superannuation by creating a legal fiction of
       continuance of service of the delinquent officer for the purpose of
       conclusion of the disciplinary proceeding – Disciplinary proceeding,
       if initiated against an employee before he retires from service,
       could be continued and concluded even after his retirement and
       for the purpose of conclusion of the disciplinary proceeding, the
       employee is deemed to have continued in service but for no other
       purpose. [Paras 23, 24, 26, 28, 30-33]

                                Case Law Cited
       SBI v. C.B. Dhall [1997] Supp. 6 SCR 416 : (1998) 2 SCC 544;
       UCO Bank v. Rajinder Lal Capoor [2007] 7 SCR 543 : (2007) 6
       SCC 694; UCO Bank v. M.B. Motwani [2023] 16 SCR 525 : (2023)
       SCC Online SC 1327; Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman [1991]
       3 SCR 790 : (1991) 4 SCC 109; Coal India Ltd. v. Saroj Kumar
       Mishra [2007] 5 SCR 233 : (2007) 9 SCC 625; Canara Bank v.
       D.R.P. Sundharam (2016) 12 SCC 724 – referred to.

                                  List of Acts
       State Bank of India Act, 1955; State Bank of India Officers’
       (Determination of Terms and Conditions of Service) Order, 1979;
       State Bank of India Officers’ Service Rules, 1992; State Bank of
       India (Supervising Staff) Service Rules, 1975.
[2024] 11 S.C.R.                                                         801

            State Bank of India & Ors. v. Navin Kumar Sinha


                            List of Keywords
     Dismissal from service; Initiation of disciplinary proceeding
     post superannuation; Disciplinary proceeding, if void-ab-initio;
     Suspension; Disciplinary proceeding; Penalty; Chargesheet;
     Jurisdiction; Relationship of master and servant; Subsistence
     allowance; Continuance of service; Extension of period of service.

                           Case Arising From
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1279 of 2024
     [From the Judgment and Order dated 12/11.02.2020 of the High
     Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in LPA No. 505 of 2016]

                        Appearances for Parties
     Balbir Singh, Sr. Adv., Sanjay Kapur, Ms. Divya Singh Pundir,
     Ms. Mahima Kapur, Devesh Dubey, Advs. for the Appellants.
     Vishwajit Singh, Sr. Adv., Rakesh Kumar Singh, Vignesh Singh,
     Rajnish Kumar Singh, Rajan Kumar Singh, Rajeev Ranjan, Ridhima
     Singh, Pankaj Singh, Advs. for the Respondent.

                Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                Judgment

     Ujjal Bhuyan, J.

     Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2.   This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and
     order dated 11.02.2020 passed by a Division Bench of the High
     Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi (briefly ‘the High Court’ hereinafter)
     in LPA No. 505 of 2016. Appellants are the State Bank of India and
     its officers.
     2.1. Respondent, an officer of the State Bank of India (SBI), was
          subjected to a disciplinary proceeding following which the penalty
          of dismissal from service was imposed on him. Departmental
          appeal filed by the respondent against the dismissal order
          was rejected by the appellate authority; so also the petition for
          review. Respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court
          challenging the order of penalty as upheld by the appellate
802                                                          [2024] 11 S.C.R.

                       Digital Supreme Court Reports


            authority and the reviewing authority. Learned Single Judge
            allowed the writ petition and set aside the order of penalty on
            the ground that the disciplinary proceeding was initiated after
            superannuation of the respondent including the extended period
            of service. Therefore, such disciplinary proceeding was held
            to be void ab initio and the consequential order of penalty set
            aside with a further direction to the appellants to pay the retiral
            and other dues of the respondent.
       2.2. Appeal filed by the appellants was also dismissed by a Division
            Bench of the High Court. Against such dismissal of the letters
            patent appeal, Special Leave Petition (C) No. 11413 of 2020 was
            filed by the appellants. This Court by order dated 16.10.2020
            had issued notice. As an interim measure, it was directed that
            the contempt proceedings stated to have been initiated by the
            respondent against the appellants before the High Court be
            deferred. The matter was finally heard on 23.01.2024 when
            leave was granted.
3.     Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to briefly
       encapsulate the relevant facts so as to have a proper perspective
       of the lis.
4.     Respondent was appointed as clerk typist in the SBI on 08.06.1973.
       He was promoted from time to time. On completion of 30 years of
       service, respondent was due to superannuate on 26.12.2003 as
       per the State Bank of India Officers’ (Determination of Terms and
       Conditions of Service) Order, 1979.
       4.1. However, by order dated 05.08.2003 issued by the competent
            authority, respondent was given extension of service from
            27.12.2003 to 01.10.2010.
5.     On 18.08.2009, a notice was issued to the respondent by the appellant
       SBI calling for his explanation as to why disciplinary action should
       not be initiated against him for violating instructions of SBI. The
       allegations highlighted in the notice mostly pertained to sanctioning
       of loans by the respondent in favour of his relatives in deviation of
       banking norms and missing of documents related to sanctioning of
       the loans.
6.     On 21.08.2009, respondent was placed under suspension.
[2024] 11 S.C.R.                                                       803

            State Bank of India & Ors. v. Navin Kumar Sinha


7.   Respondent submitted reply dated 27.10.2009 to the notice dated
     18.08.2009. However, it appears that the disciplinary authority did
     not accept such reply of the respondent.
     7.1. Thereafter on 18.03.2011, appellants decided to initiate
          disciplinary proceeding against the respondent in terms of
          Rule 68(1) of the State Bank of India Officers’ Service Rules,
          1992 (for short ‘the Service Rules’ hereinafter). Deputy General
          Manager (Operations and Credit), NW-II, Jharkhand acting
          as the disciplinary authority issued show cause notice dated
          18.03.2011 enclosing therewith articles of charges supported
          by a statement of allegations and a list of documents on the
          basis of which the charges were framed. The charges were
          the same as the allegations in the previous notice issued on
          18.08.2009. Respondent was called upon to submit his written
          statement of defence within the prescribed period. It may be
          mentioned that the disciplinary authority had appointed an
          enquiry authority to conduct the enquiry against the respondent.
          On 29.11.2011, respondent submitted his defence brief denying
          all the allegations totalling 20.
     7.2. Enquiry proceeding started on 24.05.2011 and concluded
          on 06.09.2011. Thereafter on 08.12.2011, the enquiry officer
          submitted the enquiry report to the disciplinary authority. Out of
          the 20 allegations, the enquiry officer held that 16 were proved;
          3 were partly proved; and one not proved. The disciplinary
          authority vide the forwarding letter dated 17.12.2011 forwarded
          a copy of the enquiry report to the respondent calling upon him
          to respond thereto within 15 days from the date of receipt of
          the report.
     7.3. Respondent submitted his reply to the disciplinary authority on
          15.01.2012 pointing out various flaws in the enquiry report and
          requesting the said authority to drop the proceeding.
     7.4. The disciplinary authority, however, passed order dated
          07.03.2012 imposing the penalty of dismissal from service on the
          respondent. Respondent preferred an appeal against the order
          of penalty. However, by order dated 26.10.2012, the appeal of
          the respondent was dismissed. It was thereafter that respondent
          preferred a review petition which also came to be dismissed
          by the reviewing authority vide the order dated 16.01.2014.
804                                                        [2024] 11 S.C.R.

                      Digital Supreme Court Reports



8.     Aggrieved thereby, respondent preferred a writ petition before the
       High Court assailing the order of penalty dated 07.03.2012 as affirmed
       by the appellate authority vide the order dated 26.10.2012 and by
       the reviewing authority vide the order dated 16.01.2014. The writ
       petition was registered as W(S) No. 3446 of 2014. Vide the judgment
       and order dated 06.09.2016, a Single Bench of the High Court held
       that service of the respondent was extended till 01.10.2010 after his
       superannuation in the year 2003. There was no further extension
       of service after 01.10.2010. Departmental (disciplinary) proceeding
       was initiated on 18.03.2011 when the chargesheet was issued by the
       disciplinary authority to the respondent which was admittedly after
       01.10.2010. Therefore, the appellant bank i.e. SBI had no jurisdiction
       to initiate departmental (disciplinary) proceeding beyond 01.10.2010.
       That being the position, the order of penalty dated 07.03.2012, the
       order of the appellate authority dated 26.10.2012 and the order of the
       reviewing authority dated 16.01.2014 were set aside and quashed.
       Appellants were directed to extend consequential service benefits
       to the respondent.
9.     The aforesaid judgment and order dated 06.09.2016 passed by the
       Single Bench was assailed by the appellants before the Division
       Bench of the High Court in LPA No. 505 of 2016.
       9.1. Vide the judgment and order dated 11.02.2020, the Division
            Bench concurred with the view of the Single Bench and held
            that departmental (disciplinary) proceeding could not have been
            initiated and continued after superannuation of the respondent.
            Consequently, the Division Bench dismissed the letters patent
            appeal of the appellants as being devoid of any merit.
10. Appellants had assailed the above findings before this Court by way
    of a special leave petition and on leave being granted, the present
    civil appeal came to be registered.
11. Respondent has filed counter affidavit. While defending the judgments
    of the Single Bench and the Division Bench of the High Court,
    respondent has stated that he had joined service in the appellant
    bank on 08.06.1973. As per requirement of Rule 19(1) of the Service
    Rules, appellant bank had extended the service of the respondent
    on completion of 30 years of service from 27.12.2003 to 01.10.2010.
    From 01.10.2010, no order, either oral or written, was issued by
    the appellant bank further extending the service of the respondent.
[2024] 11 S.C.R.                                                        805

            State Bank of India & Ors. v. Navin Kumar Sinha


     Therefore, the master and servant relationship between SBI and the
     respondent came to be severed on 01.10.2010.
     11.1. During the extended period of service i.e. on 18.08.2009,
           appellant bank had issued a notice to the respondent alleging
           irregularities by the respondent in the sanction and in the
           following up of advances and demand draft purchase for the
           periods from 19.01.2006 to 29.10.2008 and from 23.01.2009
           to 22.08.2009.
     11.2. Thereafter on 21.08.2009 respondent was placed under
           suspension.
     11.3. Respondent had exchanged several rounds of communication
           with the appellant bank to permit him to have access to
           documents relied upon by them while making the allegations
           against the respondent. In view of the documents being very
           voluminous, respondent had sought for time to submit his
           explanation which was declined by the appellant bank.
     11.4. Disciplinary authority vide the show cause notice dated
           18.03.2011 informed the respondent that departmental
           (disciplinary) proceeding was being initiated against him on
           the articles of charges framed. Respondent has contended
           that initiation of disciplinary proceeding on 18.03.2011 was
           after expiry of the extended period of service of the respondent
           on 01.10.2010. Be that as it may, disciplinary authority had
           appointed an enquiry officer who conducted enquiry into the
           charges and thereafter submitted his report on 17.12.2011.
     11.5. On the basis of the enquiry report, disciplinary authority imposed
           the penalty of dismissal from service on the respondent vide
           the order of penalty dated 18.03.2011.
     11.6. It is the contention of the respondent that the disciplinary
           proceeding was initiated against him after expiry of the extended
           period of service i.e. post superannuation. Therefore, such a
           disciplinary proceeding and the consequential order of penalty,
           appellate order and review order are non est in the eye of law
           being void-ab-initio.
12. Mr. Balbir Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants,
    submitted that while the respondent was in service, he had committed
    serious irregularities. In this connection, show cause notice was issued
806                                                        [2024] 11 S.C.R.

                       Digital Supreme Court Reports


       on 18.08.2009. Thereafter, a detailed departmental enquiry was held
       in which the respondent had fully participated. Enquiry officer in his
       report dated 17.12.2011 held that out of the 20 charges, 16 were
       proved and 3 partly proved. He elaborated the charges which were
       proved against the respondent and summarised the same as under :
             a.   sanctioned loans to his family members without
                  obtaining prior approval.
             b.   sanctioned loans on false certificates bearing false
                  local addresses.
             c.   unauthorisedly debited a customer’s account to
                  meet the margin requirement in the loan sanctioned
                  to his son.
             d.   disbursed various loans without completing the
                  formalities of documentation.
             e.   took educational loans as a co-borrower along with
                  his son and daughter, without approval.
             f.   disbursed loans in various accounts without obtaining
                  documents.
             g.   allowed large value debits in 49 KCC accounts
                  after the date of credit of waiver amounts under the
                  scheme.
             h.   9 cheques belonging to his wife and daughter were
                  presented by him, which were later on dishonoured.
             i.   took cash under acknowledgment on 9 occasions
                  from customers of the bank but did not credit money
                  to their account.
       12.1. He further submitted that respondent would have attained
             the age of 60 years on 30.10.2012. In fact, this has been the
             consistent stand of the respondent throughout the departmental
             proceeding. The penalty order was issued on 07.03.2012 before
             the respondent had attained the age of 60 years on 30.10.2012.
       12.2. Learned senior counsel also argued that it was not the case of
             the respondent either in appeal or in review or even before the
             learned Single Judge that the departmental proceeding against
             him was initiated after his superannuation and therefore was
[2024] 11 S.C.R.                                                        807

              State Bank of India & Ors. v. Navin Kumar Sinha


              void-ab-initio. He had assailed the order of penalty on various
              other grounds including on merit. Therefore, the High Court
              was not justified in allowing the challenge of the respondent
              on the unpleaded ground that the departmental proceeding
              was initiated against him after his superannuation. This aspect
              was also overlooked by the Division Bench.
     12.3. Referring to the stand taken by the respondent in the
           departmental enquiry as well as before the appellate authority
           that he was due to superannuate on 30.10.2012, Mr. Singh
           submits that the same is binding on him. In fact, appellant bank
           had paid subsistence allowance to the respondent even after
           01.10.2010 right upto the date of dismissal from service which
           the respondent had accepted. Therefore, it is not open to the
           respondent to now contend that his service with the appellant
           bank had come to an end on 01.10.2010.
     12.4. Learned senior counsel also referred to Rule 19 of the Service
           Rules more particularly to sub-Rule (2) thereof and contends
           that there cannot be any automatic superannuation of an officer
           from the service of the appellant bank. Superannuation of an
           officer has to be sanctioned by the competent authority under
           Rule 19(2) of the Service Rules.
     12.5. Finally, Mr. Singh, learned senior counsel submits that the
           departmental proceeding against the respondent was initiated
           before he had retired from service. Therefore, in terms of the
           Rule 19(3) of the Service Rules, respondent was deemed to
           have continued in service of the appellant bank for the purpose of
           such departmental proceeding. In this connection, he has placed
           reliance on the decision of this Court in SBI Vs. C.B. Dhall.1
13. Per contra, Mr. Vishwajit Singh, learned senior counsel for the
    respondent, submits that there is no error or infirmity in the impugned
    decision of the High Court.
     13.1. Learned senior counsel submits that the issue involved in the
           present case is quite simple: whether the appellant bank could
           have initiated disciplinary proceeding against the respondent
           after his superannuation.


1   [1997] Supp. 6 SCR 416 : (1998) 2 SCC 544
808                                                        [2024] 11 S.C.R.

                          Digital Supreme Court Reports


       13.2. He submits that respondent had completed 30 years of service
             in the appellant bank in the year 2003. Therefore in terms of
             Rule 19(1) of the Service Rules, he was due to superannuate
             on 26.12.2003. However, the appellant bank invoked the
             proviso to Rule 19(1) of the Service Rules and by recording
             reasons in writing extended the service of the respondent
             beyond 30 years from 27.12.2003 to 01.10.2010. Thereafter,
             no further extension of service was granted by the appellant
             bank. As such, the respondent’s service in the appellant bank
             had ceased with effect from 01.10.2010.
       13.3. Though appellant bank had issued notice dated 18.08.2009
             to the respondent alleging irregularities and had suspended
             him from service on 21.08.2009, departmental proceeding
             was initiated against the respondent in terms of Rule 68(1) of
             the Service Rules only on 18.03.2011 when the charge memo
             was issued, which was clearly after 01.10.2010. The factum
             of the respondent participating in the departmental proceeding
             or stating that he was due to superannuate on 30.10.2012
             would be of no consequence. Further, payment of subsistence
             allowance by the appellant bank and acceptance of the same
             by the respondent would also not lead to extension of service
             of the respondent post 01.10.2010.
       13.4. Learned senior counsel for the respondent therefore submits
             that the order of penalty imposed by the appellant bank on
             the respondent is clearly void ab initio and the High Court had
             rightly interfered with the same. In support of his submissions,
             he has placed reliance on the following decisions:
             (i)     UCO Bank Vs. Rajinder Lal Capoor;2 and
             (ii)    UCO Bank Vs. M.B. Motwani,3
14. Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have received
    the due consideration of the Court.
15. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal
    of the materials on record, we may briefly refer to the relevant



2   [2007] 7 SCR 543: (2007) 6 SCC 694
3   [2023] 16 SCR 525 : (2023) SCC Online SC 1327
[2024] 11 S.C.R.                                                        809

            State Bank of India & Ors. v. Navin Kumar Sinha


     provisions of the statutes governing the service condition of the
     respondent.
     15.1. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-Section(1) of Section
           43 of the State Bank of India Act, 1955, the Central Board
           of the State Bank of India has made the State Bank of India
           Officers (Determination of Terms and Conditions of Service)
           Order, 1979 (briefly ‘the Service Order’ hereinafter) to determine
           certain terms and conditions of appointment and service of
           officers in the State Bank of India (SBI). Order 19 thereof deals
           with the age of retirement. Clause (1) of Order 19 says that
           an officer shall retire from the service of SBI on attaining the
           age of 58 years or upon the completion of 30 years’ service or
           30 years’ pensionable service if he is a member of the Pension
           Fund, whichever occurs first. Thus, as per clause (1) of Order
           19 of the Service Order, an officer of SBI shall retire from the
           service of the bank on the happening of three contingencies
           whichever occurs first. The three contingencies are:
           (i)    on attaining the age of 58 years; or
           (ii)   upon completion of 30 years of service; or
           (iii) completed 30 years of pensionable service, if he is a
                 member of the Pension Fund.
     15.2. Therefore, what this provision contemplates is that an officer
           of SBI shall retire from service on completion of any one of the
           three contingencies whichever happens first. The first proviso
           confers a discretion upon the competent authority to extend
           the period of service of an officer who has either attained the
           age of 58 years or has completed 30 years of service or has
           completed 30 years of pensionable service, if it is deemed that
           such extension is desirable in the interest of SBI. However,
           the extended period of service shall not be counted for the
           purpose of pension.
     15.3. As per clause (2) of Order 19, no officer of SBI who has ceased
           to be in the service of SBI by virtue of any of the contingencies
           provided for in clause (1), shall be deemed to have retired from
           the service of the said bank for the purpose of the Pension
           and Guarantee Fund Rules or the Pension Fund Rules unless
           such cessation of service has been sanctioned on retirement
           for the purpose of either of the aforesaid two rules.
810                                                         [2024] 11 S.C.R.

                       Digital Supreme Court Reports


       15.4. Clause (3) of Order 19 makes it clear that in case disciplinary
             proceeding under the relevant rules of service has been initiated
             against an officer before he ceases to be in the service of
             SBI, the disciplinary proceeding may, at the discretion of the
             Managing Director, be continued after cessation of service and
             concluded by the authority which had initiated the same as if
             the officer continues in service. However, such an officer shall
             be deemed to be in service only for the purpose of continuance
             and conclusion of such proceeding.
       15.5. A conjoint reading of the three clauses of Order 19 would
             indicate that an officer of SBI shall retire from the service of
             the said bank on fulfilment of either of the three conditions.
             However, the competent authority has the discretion to extend
             the period of service of such an officer, if such extension is
             deemed desirable in the interest of SBI though the extended
             period of service will not be counted for the purpose of
             pension. Under clause (2), no officer who has ceased to be
             in the service of SBI by virtue of the contingencies stipulated
             in clause (1), shall be deemed to have retired from service
             for the purpose of the Pension and Guarantee Fund Rules or
             the Pension Fund Rules unless such cessation of service has
             been sanctioned. Therefore, the sanctioning of cessation of
             service is only for the purpose of the aforesaid rules. Clause
             (3) contains the clarification that if disciplinary proceeding
             has been initiated against such an officer under the relevant
             service rules before he ceases to be in the service of SBI, the
             disciplinary proceeding may be continued and concluded by
             the authority which had initiated the same even post cessation
             of service of the officer. However, he shall be deemed to be in
             service only for the purpose of continuance and conclusion of
             such proceeding and not for any other purpose.
16. Now let us turn to the State Bank of India Officers’ Service Rules,
    1992 (already referred to as ‘the Service Rules’). Preamble to the
    Service Rules says that the said rules have been framed by the
    Central Board of the State Bank of India exercising powers conferred
    by sub-Section(1) of Section 43 of the State Bank of India Act, 1955
    to determine the terms and conditions of appointment and service
    of all officers in the State Bank of India. The Service Rules came
    into effect from 01.01.1992.
[2024] 11 S.C.R.                                                       811

            State Bank of India & Ors. v. Navin Kumar Sinha


     16.1. Rule 2(1) says that the Service Rules shall apply to all officers
           of SBI who are appointed or promoted to any of the grades
           mentioned in Rule 4 and also to whom any of the rules
           mentioned thereunder are applicable. The rules include the
           State Bank of India Officers’ (Determination of Terms and
           Conditions of Service) Order, 1979 (already referred to as ‘the
           Service Order’ hereinbefore). Rule 19 deals with retirement. As
           per Rule 19(1), an officer shall retire from the service of SBI
           on attaining the age of 60 years or upon the completion of 30
           years of service or 30 years of pensionable service, if he is a
           member of the Pension Fund, whichever occurs first. The first
           proviso says that the competent authority, may, for reasons
           to be recorded in writing, extend the period of service of an
           officer who has completed 30 years of service or 30 years
           of pensionable service, as the case may be, should such
           extension be deemed desirable in the interest of the bank.
           However, the second proviso clarifies that an officer who has
           attained the age of 60 years shall not be granted any further
           extension in service.
     16.2. From a comparative analysis of Order 19(1) of the Service
           Order with Rule 19(1) of the Service Rules, what is discernible
           is that the only change introduced by the latter is in one of
           the conditions of superannuation i.e. the age. From 58 years it
           has now become 60 years. Rest of the provision has remained
           unaltered, including the contingencies of superannuation.
           Whether it is 58 or 60 years, it is only one of the contingencies
           of superannuation, not the sole. Before attaining the age of
           58 years or 60 years, as the case may be, an officer shall
           superannuate from service if he has completed 30 years of
           service or 30 years of pensionable service. However, the
           second proviso has made a clarification that an officer who
           has attained the age of 60 years shall not be granted any
           further extension in service. This means that an officer can
           be superannuated before attaining the age of 60 years if any
           one of the other two contingencies are fulfilled; he may also
           be granted extension of service thereafter but such extension
           of service cannot be beyond the age of 60 years.
     16.3. Rule 19(2), on the other hand, starts with a non-obstante
           clause. It says that notwithstanding anything to the contrary
812                                                          [2024] 11 S.C.R.

                       Digital Supreme Court Reports


             in the Service Rules, no officer who has ceased to be in the
             bank’s service by the operation of, or by virtue of, any provision
             shall be deemed to have retired from the service of SBI for the
             purpose of the Imperial Bank of India Employees’ Pension and
             Guarantee Fund Rules or the State Bank of India Employees’
             Pension Fund Rules unless such cessation of service has
             been sanctioned as retirement for the purpose of either of the
             said pension fund rules as may be applicable to him. Thus
             what Rule 19(2) contemplates is sanctioning of cessation of
             service for the purpose of the aforesaid two rules only and for
             no other purpose.
       16.4. Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 19 provides that in case disciplinary
             proceeding under the relevant rules of service has been
             initiated against an officer before he ceases to be in the
             service of SBI by operation of, or by virtue of, any of the said
             rules or the provisions of the Service Rules, the disciplinary
             proceeding may at the discretion of the competent authority,
             be continued and concluded by the authority by which the
             proceeding was initiated in the manner provided in the said
             rules post cessation of service as if the officer continues
             to be in service; but he shall be deemed to be in service
             only for the purpose of continuance and conclusion of such
             proceeding.
17. Chapter XI of the Service Rules deals with conduct, discipline and
    appeal. Chapter XI comprises of Rule 50 to Rule 70.
       17.1. Section 2 of Chapter XI deals with discipline and appeal. Rule
             67, which is part of Section 2, provides for various categories
             of minor and major penalties which may be imposed on an
             officer for an act of misconduct or for any other good and
             sufficient reason to be recorded in writing.
       17.2. The heading of Rule 68 which is also part of Chapter XI is
             decision to initiate and procedure for disciplinary action. Rule
             68(1) says that the disciplinary authority either by itself or on
             a direction of the superior authority may institute disciplinary
             proceeding against an officer. The disciplinary authority or
             any authority higher than it may impose any of the penalties
             mentioned in Rule 67 on such an officer.
[2024] 11 S.C.R.                                                         813

              State Bank of India & Ors. v. Navin Kumar Sinha


     17.3. As per Rule 68(2), no order imposing any of the major penalties
           shall be made except after an inquiry held in accordance with
           Rule 68(2). Clause (iii) of sub-Rule (2) of Rule 68 says that
           where it is proposed to hold an inquiry, the disciplinary authority
           shall frame definite and distinct charges on the basis of the
           allegations against the officer and the articles of charge(s)
           together with the statement of allegations on which those are
           based, list of documents and witnesses relied on, copies of
           relied upon documents to the extent possible and the statement
           of witnesses shall be communicated in writing to the officer
           who shall be required to submit within such time as may be
           specified by the disciplinary authority, a written statement of
           his defence.
     17.4. Thereafter, the procedure for conducting inquiry is laid down.
     17.5. Rule 69 provides for appeal and review. As per sub-Rule (1),
           an officer may appeal to the appellate authority against an
           order imposing upon him any of the penalties specified in Rule
           67 or against an order of suspension. The procedural part of
           such an appeal is provided in sub-Rule (2).
     17.6. Rule 69(3) deals with review. Clause (i) thereof, which starts
           with a non-obstante clause, says that notwithstanding anything
           contained in Section 2, the reviewing authority may call for the
           record of the case within six months of the date of the final
           order and after reviewing the case, pass such order(s) thereon
           as it may deem fit.
18. In Union of India Vs. K.V. Jankiraman,4 this Court was examining
    the impact of sealed cover procedure on an employee due for
    promotion, increment etc. In that case, the employees were eligible
    for promotion but because of pending disciplinary proceeding, were
    subjected to sealed cover procedure. It was in that context that this
    Court considered amongst others the question as to what is the date
    from which it can be said that a disciplinary proceeding is pending
    against an employee. After due analysis, this Court held that it is
    only when a charge memo is issued to the employee that it can


4   [1991] 3 SCR 790 : (1991) 4 SCC 109
814                                                      [2024] 11 S.C.R.

                      Digital Supreme Court Reports


       said a departmental (disciplinary) proceeding is initiated against
       the employee.
19. This issue was again considered by this Court in Rajinder Lal
    Capoor (supra). Respondent in that case was an officer of the
    UCO Bank. Following a disciplinary proceeding, he was dismissed
    from service. However, the High Court in writ jurisdiction converted
    the punishment of removal from service into one of compulsory
    retirement with effect from the date of superannuation. UCO Bank
    came up in appeal following leave granted before this Court. On
    examining, this Court while opining that the High Court may not
    have been correct in converting the penalty of removal from service
    to compulsory retirement, however, came to the conclusion that
    initiation of departmental proceeding itself was wholly illegal and
    without jurisdiction. The chargesheet was issued on 13.11.1998
    whereas the respondent had attained the age of superannuation
    on or before 01.11.1996. Referring to the relevant provision i.e.
    Regulation 20(3)(iii) of the UCO Bank Officer Employees’ Service
    Regulations, 1979 which created a legal fiction of continuance in
    service of the concerned officer post superannuation if disciplinary
    proceeding had been initiated prior to superannuation, such
    continuance of service being only for the purpose of conclusion of
    the disciplinary proceeding, this Court held that such a provision
    could be invoked only when the disciplinary proceeding had clearly
    been initiated prior to the respondents’ ceasing to be in service. Only
    when a valid departmental proceeding is initiated against the officer
    while in service, despite his attaining the age of superannuation,
    the disciplinary proceeding can be allowed to be continued on
    the basis of the legal fiction as if he was in service. Thus, when a
    departmental proceeding is continued by reason of the legal fiction,
    the delinquent officer would be deemed to be in service although he
    has reached his age of superannuation. Reiterating the view taken
    in K.V. Jankiraman (supra), this Court held that the departmental
    proceeding is not initiated merely by issuance of a show cause
    notice. It is initiated only when a chargesheet is issued. In the facts
    of that case, since the disciplinary proceeding was initiated after
    the age of superannuation, the chargesheet, inquiry report and the
    order of punishment were held to be illegal and without jurisdiction
    by this Court and those were set aside. Consequently, all retiral
    benefits due to the respondent was directed to be paid.
[2024] 11 S.C.R.                                                        815

              State Bank of India & Ors. v. Navin Kumar Sinha


20. Similarly in Coal India Ltd. Vs. Saroj Kumar Mishra,5 this Court
    again reiterated the legal position that a departmental proceeding
    is ordinarily said to be initiated only when a chargesheet is issued.
21. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in Canara Bank Vs. D.R.P.
    Sundharam6 examined the meaning and effect of Regulation 20(3)
    (iii) of the Canara Bank (Officers’) Service Regulations, 1979 which
    is pari materia to Regulation 20(3)(iii) of the UCO Bank Officer
    Employees’ Services Regulations, 1979 in the light of the view taken
    in Rajinder Lal Capoor (supra) and held that Regulation 20(3)(iii) is a
    stand-alone provision. By virtue of the said provision, a disciplinary
    proceeding initiated by means of a chargesheet prior to the retirement
    of a bank employee would continue even after his retirement in view
    of the provision contained in Regulation 20(3)(iii). In the facts of that
    case, the Bench noted that disciplinary proceeding was initiated by
    submission of chargesheet after the retirement of the respondent.
    Therefore, while confirming the decision of the High Court, this Court
    dismissed the appeal filed by Canara Bank.
22. In the case of M.B. Motwani (supra), Supreme Court once again
    reiterated the position that a departmental proceeding is not initiated
    merely on issuance of a show cause notice. It is initiated only when a
    chargesheet is issued because that is the date of application of mind
    on the allegations levelled against an employee by the competent
    authority. In that case, it was noticed that the deceased employee
    had attained the age of superannuation on 31.07.1991 whereas the
    chargesheet was issued to him on 07.12.1991 meaning thereby that
    on the date of his superannuation, no disciplinary proceeding was
    pending against him. That being the position, this Court dismissed
    the appeal filed by UCO Bank.
23. Having surveyed the relevant legal provisions and the case law,
    let us now revert back to the essential undisputed facts of the
    case. Respondent was appointed in the SBI as a clerk typist on
    08.06.1973. In due course of time, he rose through the ranks and
    reached managerial position. On completion of 30 years of service,
    he was due to superannuate on 26.12.2003. Exercising powers
    under Rule 19(1) of the Service Rules, respondent was granted


5   [2007] 5 SCR 233 : (2007) 9 SCC 625
6   (2016) 12 SCC 724
816                                                        [2024] 11 S.C.R.

                      Digital Supreme Court Reports


       extension of service vide order dated 05.08.2023 from 27.12.2003
       to 01.10.2010. On 18.08.2009, a notice was issued to the petitioner
       wherein and whereby serious irregularities allegedly committed by him
       were highlighted and his response was sought for. On 21.08.2009,
       respondent was placed under suspension. Though respondent had
       submitted his reply to the notice dated 18.08.2009 on 27.10.2009, it
       appears that the disciplinary authority did not accept such reply and
       decided to initiate disciplinary proceeding against the respondent
       by issuing show cause notice dated 18.03.2011 under Rule 68(1)
       of the Service Rules. Alongwith the show cause notice, articles of
       charges and the statement of allegations on the basis of which the
       charges were framed, were sent to the respondent. There is nothing
       on record to show further continuance of service by the respondent
       beyond 01.10.2010. As noted above, service of the respondent was
       extended from 27.12.2003 to 01.10.2010.
24. From the above, it is evident that charge memo was issued to the
    respondent on 18.03.2011 after his extension of service was over
    on 01.10.2010. This is an undisputed jurisdictional fact.
25. Appellants have contended that respondent was paid subsistence
    allowance from his date of suspension i.e. 21.08.2009 till his dismissal
    from service vide order dated 07.03.2012 beyond 01.10.2010. Besides
    it was the case of the respondent himself before the enquiry officer,
    disciplinary authority as well as before the appellate authority that
    he was due to superannuate on 30.10.2012. He also did not plead
    either before the said authorities or before the High Court that he
    had ceased to be in service of SBI from 01.10.2010 and therefore
    the disciplinary proceeding initiated thereafter on 18.03.2011 was
    void-ab-initio. As such the learned Single Judge was not justified in
    accepting the challenge of the respondent to the order of penalty
    on a completely different ground.
26. We are afraid we cannot accept such a contention on behalf of
    the appellants. Where the disciplinary proceeding itself is without
    jurisdiction, upholding the same on the specious plea that it was not
    challenged on the ground of lack of jurisdiction would be tantamount
    to giving imprimatur to a patently illegal proceeding. This aspect
    was gone into by the learned Single Judge in the following manner:
            6. After hearing learned counsel for the respective parties
            at length and on perusal of the records, I am of the
[2024] 11 S.C.R.                                                         817

            State Bank of India & Ors. v. Navin Kumar Sinha


          considered view that the petitioner has been able to make
          out a case for interference due to the following facts and
          reasons stated hereinbelow:
          (I) Indisputably, on completion of 30 years of service in
          the year 2003, the services of the petitioner was extended
          till 01.10.2010 as per the State Bank of India officers
          (determination of term & conditions of services 1979). The
          alleged charges pertains to the extension period of the
          petitioner as Branch Manager, SBI, Tangerbansali Branch,
          Ranchi during the period 19.01.2006 to 29.10.2008 and
          23.01.2009 to 22.08.2009. After submission of explanation
          to the alleged charges, the disciplinary authority decided
          to initiate departmental proceeding vide letter dated
          18.03.2011 containing article of charges. In the disciplinary
          proceeding the order of dismissal has been passed under
          Rule 67(j) of the SBI Officers Service Rules which has been
          affirmed by the appellate as well as revisional authority.
          Admittedly, there has not been extension of service after
          01.10.2010 nor any provision of relevant rules has been
          brought to the notice of this Court as to what would be
          effect the disciplinary proceeding after retirement. When
          there is no express order by the respondent bank for
          extension of services after 01.10.2010, the said date is to
          be treated as the date of retirement in usual course. In the
          instant case, the charge sheet was issued on 18.03.2011
          after the date of deemed retirement of the petitioner when
          there was no specific order by the banking authorities
          for extension of services. Therefore, on that score, the
          impugned order of dismissal dated 07.03.2012 passed by
          the appointing authority being affirmed by the appellate
          authority as well as reviewing authorities being not legally
          sustainable is liable to be quashed. The view of this Court
          gets fortified by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court
          in the case of Union of India Vs. J. Ahmad reported in
          1979 (2) SCC 286 which still holds the fields the entire
          departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner
          after non-extension of service in terms of State Bank of
          India Officers (Determination of Terms and Conditions of
          Service) Order, 1979 as substituted on 23.02.1984 and
818                                                       [2024] 11 S.C.R.

                    Digital Supreme Court Reports


          State Bank of India Officers Service Rules, 1992 the
          relationship of master and servant has come to an end
          after 01.10.2010. Therefore, the respondent bank had no
          jurisdiction to initiate departmental proceeding without
          extension of services of the petitioner beyond 01.10.2010.
          Apart from the aforesaid legal of provision in the instant
          case as apparent from the pleadings of the parties the
          bank has not suffered any pecuniary loss for any act of
          omission or commission on the part of petitioner. In the
          aforesaid backdrop of fact the initiation of departmental
          proceeding and imposition of extreme punishment of
          dismissal from services is unreasonable, illegal and not
          legally sustainable.
27. When the appellants approached the Division Bench of the High Court
    in letters patents appeal, the Division Bench repelled the contention
    of the appellants and held as follows:
          11. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant
          Bank that as per the Rule 19(1) of the State Bank of
          India Officers’ Service Rules, 1992, the respondent writ
          petitioner was to superannuate on completion of 60 years
          of age, is again, not in consonance with the Rules. The
          relevant portion of Rule 19(1) of the aforesaid Rules reads
          as follows:-
               “19.(1) An officer shall retire from the service
               of the Bank on attaining the age of sixty years
               or upon the completion of thirty years’ service
               or thirty years’ pensionable service, if he is
               a member of the Pension Fund, whichever
               occurs first.”
          A bare perusal of the Rule clearly shows that if an officer
          of the State Bank of India, completes thirty years of
          service prior to attaining the age of 60 years, he is to
          superannuate from service, on completion of thirty years
          of service, irrespective of the fact that he has not attained
          the age of 60 years.
          12. In the case of the writ petitioner, he was made to
          superannuate on the date of completion of 30 years of
[2024] 11 S.C.R.                                                         819

            State Bank of India & Ors. v. Navin Kumar Sinha


          service in the year 2003 itself, and he was again given
          an extension of service from 27.12.2003 to 1.10.2010. As
          such, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that even
          in case of extension of service given to the respondent
          writ petitioner beyond the period of 30 years of service,
          he was to continue in service till he attained the age of 60
          years. No other Rule has been brought on record, or to the
          notice of this Court to show that even after completion of
          30 years of service, the officer of the Bank shall continue
          in service, till he attains the age of 60 years. Rule 19(1)
          of the State Bank of India Officers’ Service Rules, 1992,
          is absolutely clear, without any ambiguity, wherein there is
          no scope of accepting the submission of learned counsel
          for the appellant Bank.
          13. Thus, the only conclusion that can be drawn in the
          present case, is that the writ petitioner could not have
          been allowed to continue in service after 1.10.2010,
          in absence of any further extension of service, which
          admittedly was not done in the present case. In that view
          of the matter, we find that the departmental proceeding
          had been initiated and the punishment order was passed
          after the superannuation of the petitioner on 1.10.2010,
          as the initiation of the departmental proceeding was done
          on 18.03.2011, and the punishment order was passed by
          the Disciplinary Authority on 7.03.2012, i.e., after the date
          of superannuation, which was not permissible in the eyes
          of law, in absence of any disciplinary Rules. Admittedly, no
          such Rules were brought to the notice of the Writ Court,
          or to the notice of this Court.
          14. As such, we find no illegality in the impugned
          Judgment dated 6.9.2016, passed by the Writ Court in
          W.P.(S) No.3446 of 2014, holding that the departmental
          proceeding could not have been initiated and continued
          after the superannuation of the respondent writ petitioner,
          and allowing the writ application, quashing the order of
          dismissal from service passed by the Disciplinary Authority,
          as well as the orders of the Appellate and the Reviewing
          Authorities, worth any interference in exercise of the LPA
          jurisdiction.
820                                                         [2024] 11 S.C.R.

                      Digital Supreme Court Reports


28. In so far the present case is concerned, respondent was due to
    superannuate on 26.12.2003 apparently on completion of 30 years of
    service but his service was extended on 05.08.2003 from 27.12.2003
    to 01.10.2010. Thus, the extended service of the respondent came
    to an end on 01.10.2010. The relationship of master and servant
    between the appellants and the respondent came to be severed on
    and from 01.10.2010. The factum of receipt of subsistence allowance
    thereafter or the respondent declaring that he would superannuate
    on a later date i.e. on 30.10.2012 on attaining the age of 60 years
    would not make any difference to the legal and factual scenario.
    Therefore, it is evident that respondent was no longer in the service
    of SBI post 01.10.2010.
29. Attaining 60 years of service (earlier 58 years) is not the sole criterion
    of superannuation of an officer serving in SBI. As already noted and
    discussed above, it is one of the three contingencies. If any of the
    three contingencies are fulfilled, an officer would be superannuated.
    Respondent had actually superannuated from service in SBI on
    26.12.2003 on completion of 30 years of service but his service was
    extended prior thereto on 05.08.2003 from 27.12.2003 to 01.10.2010.
    Post 01.10.2010 there was no further extension of service.
30. Disciplinary proceeding against the respondent was not initiated on
    18.08.2009 when the first notice to show cause was issued but was
    initiated only on 18.03.2011 when the disciplinary authority issued
    the charge memo to the respondent.
31. As has been held by this Court on more than one occasion, a subsisting
    disciplinary proceeding i.e. one initiated before superannuation of the
    delinquent officer may be continued post superannuation by creating
    a legal fiction of continuance of service of the delinquent officer for
    the purpose of conclusion of the disciplinary proceeding (in this
    case as per Rule 19(3) of the Service Rules). But no disciplinary
    proceeding can be initiated after the delinquent employee or officer
    retires from service on attaining the age of superannuation or after
    the extended period of service.
32. Even in the case of C.B. Dhall (supra) relied upon by the appellants,
    this Court while considering the purport of Rule 20B of the State
    Bank of India (Supervising Staff) Service Rules, 1975 held that under
    Rule 20B disciplinary proceeding, if initiated against an employee
    before he retires from service, could be continued and concluded
[2024] 11 S.C.R.                                                   821

               State Bank of India & Ors. v. Navin Kumar Sinha


     even after his retirement and for the purpose of conclusion of the
     disciplinary proceeding, the employee is deemed to have continued
     in service but for no other purpose.
33. That being the position, we see no merit in the appeal. Accordingly,
    the appeal is dismissed. Appellants are directed to release all the
    service dues of the respondent expeditiously and at any rate not
    later than six weeks from today.

     Result of the case: Appeal dismissed.



     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain