TMI Blog1990 (7) TMI 379X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peal No. 141/86 and allowed the writ petition but dismissed the writ appeal by order dated 26.11.87. The State Bank aggrieved against the aforesaid order of the High Court passed in writ petition No. 194/83 has filed this special leave petition. The High Court has allowed the writ petition only on one ground that the appointing authority of Vijaya Kumar was Executive Committee of the Bank and as such Chief General Manager being an authority lower than the appointing authority was not competent to pass an order of dismissal. SLP No. 15235 of 1988: 4. In this case the respondent T. Dayakar Rao was appointed as a Clerk in the State Bank of India in the month of October, 1962. In the month of July, 1971 he was selected as a Trainee Officer and was given job training at various branches of the Bank for two years. While he was working as a Bank Manager he was charge sheeted for irregularities committed by him during the period 1.9.79 to 15.6.80. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated on 29.7.82. On 6.3.84 the Chief General Manager in the capacity of disciplinary authority passed an order of dismissal. T. Dayakar Rao filed a writ petition No. 1204/84 in the High Court. The Divi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led a writ petition No. 5509/84 in the High Court. Learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition declaring the order of dismissal as incompetent and invalid. The Bank aggrieved against the order of the Learned Single Judge filed a Letters Patent Appeal No. 141/86 before the Division Bench. The Division Bench heard and disposed of the writ appeal No. 141/86 and-writ petition No. 194/83 by a common order. The Division Bench agreed with the conclusion of the learned Single Judge that the order of dismissal passed by the Chief General Manager is incompetent and invalid being violative of the guarantee contained in the proviso to Regulation 55(2)(a) of the State Bank of India General Regulations, 1955. 8. While dealing with the cross objections filed by Shri Hanumantha Rao the Bench took notice of the fact that the writ petitioner had died on 24.11.87 and as such gave the following direction: On account of the death of the writ-petitioner it is unnecessary for us to go into the merits of the contentions urged by way of cross-objections. There is no question of any enquiry or further enquiry hereafter. We may mention in this connection that the learned Counsel for the petitioner ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r desirable for the efficient performance of its functions and to determine the terms and conditions of their appointments and service. 12. Section 49 of the Act confers power on the Central Government in consultation with the Reserve Bank to make rules to provide for all matters in which provision is necessary or expedient for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of the Act. 13. Section 50(1) of the Act confers powers on the Central Board of Directors of the Bank to make regulations. 14. Sub-section (3) of the Section 50 of the Act empowered the Reserve Bank to make the first regulations with the previous sanction of the Central Government. 15. In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (3) of Section 50 of the Act, the Reserve Bank of India with the previous sanction of the Central Government made the State Bank of India General Regulations, 1955. These regulations have been amended from time to time by the Central Board of Directors by making regulations under Sub-section (1) of Section 50 of the Act. 16. Regulation 55(2)(a) deals with the initial appointments and promotions to various categories of employees in the bank. Initially the appointmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irector according as the employee is serving in the Circle or in or under Central Office; (ii) in the case of Staff Officers of various grades and of other employees to whom the salary scales applicable to Staff Officers generally apply with or without modification, the Managing Director; (iii) in the case of Senior Staff Appointments and of employees to whom the salary, scales applicable to Senior Staff Appointments generally apply with or without modification, the Executive Committee; 17. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 50 relevant for our purposes is also reproduced below: 50(1)(i) The Disciplinary Authority may itself, or shall when so directed by its superior authority, institute disciplinary proceedings against an employee. (ii) The Disciplinary Authority or any Authority higher than it may impose any of the penalties in Rule 49 on an employee. 18. It may be further noted that an amendment in Regulation 55 was approved by Central Board at its meeting dated August 25, 1988 which reads as under: 55(1) Save as provided in Sub-regulation (2) and as may be directed the Central Board, a Local Board may exercise all the powers of the State Bank in respect of the Staff serv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cutive Committee of the Bank passed the following resolution on August 30, 1988: 20. In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 43 of the State Bank of India Act, 1955 (23 of 1955) and amended Sub-regulation (2)(a) of Regulation 55 of the State Bank of India General Regulations, 1955, the Executive Committee of the Central Board of the State Bank of India hereby makes the following order: 21. The initial appointments and/or promotions to various categories of officers and other employees in the Bank set out in Column I here under shall be made by the authority specified in Column II. 22. All authorisations in respect of appointing authority and/or promoting authority made by the Executive Committee from time to time after 1.10.79 shall be deemed to have been done under the amended regulation 55. Appointments authorised by the Chief General Manager (Personnel HRD) in respect of JMGS I after 1.10.79 are also confirmed hereby. 23. All the employees of the bank in the cases before us where appointed by the Executive Committee. Order of dismissal in their cases has been passed by the Chief General Manager. It is an admitted position that on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Chief General Manager had become the appointing authority of the employees in question under Regulation 55(2)(a) with effect from 1.7.74. Admittedly the orders of dismissal have been passed long after these amendments when the Chief General Manager had already become their appointing authority under the Regulations and the Rules. The right that an officer or employee of the State Bank of India cannot be dismissed from service by an authority lower than the appointing authority is a creation of statutory rules and regulations. So far as the right or protection guaranteed under Article 311 of the Constitution is concerned, it applies to members of the Civil Service of the Union or an All India service or a Civil Service of a State or who holds a Civil Post under the Union or a State. Admittedly the employees of the State Bank do not fall under any one of these categories and they cannot seek any protection under Article 311(1) of the Constitution. The employees of the State Bank can only claim such rights which have been conferred under Regulation 55(2)(a) of the General Regulations. The only right conferred under the said provision is that the officers or employees of the State Bank ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... liable to be determined under statutory or constitutional authority which for its exercise requires no reciprocal consent. In Bishun Narain Misra v. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (1966) ILLJ 45 SC it was held that new rule reducing the age of retirement from 55 years to 53 years could not be said to be retrospective. The proviso to the new rule and the second notification were only methods to tide over the difficult situation which would arise in the public service if the new rule was applied at once and also to meet any financial objection arising out of the enforcement of the new rule. The new rule therefore, could not be struck down on the ground that it was retrospective in operation. In Roshan Lal Tandon v. Union of India and Anr. and Kunj Behari v. Union of India and Ors. (1968) ILLJ 576 SC it was held that the legal position of Government servant is more one of status than of contract. The hallmark of status is the attachment to a legal relationship of rights and duties imposed by the public law and not by mere agreement by the parties. Emolument of the Government servant and his terms of service are governed by statute or statutory rules which may be unilaterally ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
