The Managing Director, State Bank of Travancore vs K.S. Prasad

Lingaraja Rath, J.—Assailing the directions in the judgment of the learned single Judge in W.P.No. 4231 of 1984 dated August 26, 1988 directing the appellant to pay the respondent his full salary including the increments covering the period of suspension, to consider him for promotion as indicated in the judgment with consequential reliefs, and for rectification of any mistakes in the grant of increments, this appeal has been preferred.

The respondent who was in the service of the appellant as Officer, Grade-I was suspended on June 14, 1980 and in a departmental proceeding conducted against him on charges of misconduct like exercise of powers in excess of authority, accumulation of loans to be recovered, non-reporting of the factual position to the head office, and backing out of guarantees by outsiders, the punishment of stoppage of three increments was imposed upon him while directing his reinstatement. The period of suspension was also directed to be treated as such as per the provisions of the service regulations applicable to him.

Admittedly the punishment imposed and the direction regarding the suspension period have become final.

In the writ petition though the respondent claimed the relief of quashing of the punishment as also his non-consideration for promotion made subsequent to his reinstatement, and limiting the payment due to him to the subsistence allowance during suspension period, yet the first part of it was not seriously pressed and the learned single Judge finding substance in the other two contentions, allowed the reliefs.

Mr. Srinivasamurthy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits firstly that the non-consideration of the appellant for promotion till the appellant earns back the increments lost to him and is restored to the normal stage of the time scale of pay, is one as per the policy decision taken by the bank on September 6, 1982 communicated to all branches and that in passing the order of treating the period of suspension as such viz., limiting the payment made during the suspension period to the subsistence allowance already paid, is not necessary to be passed only after issuing a notice to show cause against the order.

The State bank of Travancore (Officers'') Service Regulations 1979, which admittedly govern the respondent provide, in Regulation 17 thereof that "promotions to all grades of officers in the Bank shall be made in accordance with the policy laid down by the Board or the Executive Committee from time to time having regard to the State Bank''s guidelines". The consideration for promotion as is impugned in the present case was made in 1984 and the appellant had been also called for interview. But he was not promoted. In the counter-affidavit it was explained that he was not eligible to be considered as three years had not passed from the date of imposition of the punishment and the respondent had not come back to the stage in the time scale from which he was lowered down.

In the Promotion Policy circulated in SBD No. 2660 dated September 6, 1982 it was intimated asunder:

"(i) Where increments have been withheld, with or without cumulative effect, the concerned officers would be considered for promotion only after they become eligible to draw the increments.

(ii) Where promotion of an official is withheld as a punishment, the period for which promotion is withheld is invariably specified in the relative order. The concerned officer would become eligible for being considered for promotion only on expiry of the specified period.

(iii) Where a major penalty of reduction to a lower grade or post or to a lower stage in a time scale has been awarded, the Disciplinary Authority should invariably indicate in the relative order awarding the punishment the period after which the concerned officer would become eligible to be considered for. promotion so as to avoid possible future legal complications. However, in cases where no such period has been mentioned the general presumption is that in the cases of reduction to a lower stage, the concerned officer will, become eligible".

The non-consideration of the respondent having been made in accordance with the policy circular issued by the State Bank of India, and Regulation 17 itself providing that the promotion shall be in accordance with the policy laid down, we do not find any illegality to have been committed. Since the policy itself is that aperson who has been brought down to a lower stage in the time scale of pay, which is a major punishment, is not to be considered for promotion until he reaches back his stage from where he was brought down, the respondent had no right to be considered for promotion and merely because he was mistakenly called for the interview held for promotion, no right had been created in his favour. The argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the supersession works out a double jeopardy against him is not correct as the condition of service is itself that way and as a matter of fact there is no double jeopardy. The reliance placed by the learned counsel on the decision in S.K. Sharma v. H.S.E.B. Chandigarh 1988 (3) SLR 524 has no relevance since that was a case of bringing down the appellant in that case to a lower stage of seniority only because stoppage of increments had been imposed as the punishment.

Coming to the next question regarding necessity of notice to have been given before the order regarding suspension period was passed, the position is covered by the judgment of this Court, delivered by one of us, in W.P. No. 1095 of 1988 decided on November 11, 1994 which view we are in complete agreement and endorse. This is not a case where the suspension of the respondent could be held to be wholly unjustified because of the reinstatement, as he was reinstated with punishment. The case is squarely covered by the judgment referred to. In that case Rule 54-B of the A. P. Fundamental Rules was considered and the decision was rendered that no notice is necessary to be issued where the suspension cannot ipso facto be called wholly unjustified. Regulation 69(8)(i) and (ii) of the Regulations cover similar situations as Rule 54-B providing the officer as entitled to the full pay where he is fully exonerated or that the suspension was unjustified, but in other cases the authority is to decide and pay the pay and allowances for the period. Consequently we must hold that no notice in the matter is necessary to be issued.

In the result, the appeal succeeds and the impugned judgment is reserved (sic. reversed). There shall be no order as to costs.