Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 11
PETITIONER:
STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS. ETC.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
S. VIJAYA KUMAR & ORS. ETC.
DATE OF JUDGMENT18/07/1990
BENCH:
KASLIWAL, N.M. (J)
BENCH:
KASLIWAL, N.M. (J)
SHARMA, L.M. (J)
CITATION:
1991 AIR 79 1990 SCR (3) 398
1990 SCC (4) 481 JT 1990 (3) 308
1990 SCALE (2)110
ACT:
State Bank of India Act, 1955/State Bank of India
(Supervising Staff) Service Rules. 1975/State Bank of India
General Regulations 1955--Sections 43, 49, 50(1)/Regulation
55(2)(a)--Order of dismissal not to be passed by an authori-
ty lower than the appointing authority.
HEADNOTE:
A common question of law viz., whether an order of
dismissal against an employee, could validly be passed by an
authority lower than the appointing authority of the Bank,
arises for determination in these three appeals, two by the
State Bank of India and the third by an employee.
Respondent, Vijaya Kumar in Civil Appeal 3392 of 1990,
was appointed as Probationary Officer by an order of the
Executive Committee of the Central Board of the State Bank
of India. He was charge sheeted for gross irregularities and
corrupt practices and was dismissed from service by an order
passed by the Chief General Manager of the Bank, whereupon,
he flied a writ petition before the Andhra Pradesh High
Court, challenging the order of dismissal passed against
him. A Division Bench of the High Court heard the writ
petition, alongwith writ appeal No. 141 of 1986 (involving a
similar point). The High Court allowed the writ petition.
The State Bank being aggrieved by the said order has filed
this appeal after obtaining special leave.
T. Dayakar Rao, respondent in Civil Appeal No. 3393 of
1990 was appointed as a Clerk in the State Bank in October,
1962 and while he was working as a Bank Manager he was
chargesheeted for irregularities committed by him during the
period from 1.9.1979 to 14.6.80. He was dismissed under
orders of the Chief General Manager being the disciplinary
authority. Mr. Rao flied a writ petition in the High Court
and the High Court allowed the writ petition following its
decision in writ appeal No. 141 of 1986. Being aggrieved the
State Bank has filed the instant appeal with special leave
of the Court.
Civil Appeal No. 3394 of 1990 has been filed ,by an employee
A.K.
399
Soundararajan, who was appointed as Technical Officer by the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 11
Executive Committee of the Central Board of the Bank. It was
specifically mentioned in the Order of appointment that Shri
Soundararajan would be governed by the State Bank of India
(Officers & Assistants) Service Rules. Shri Soundararajan
was chargesheeted and dismissed under orders passed by the
Chief General Manager- Thereupon he filed a writ petition in
the High Court challenging his order of dismissal. Learned
Single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petition.
The Bank filed an appeal before the Division Bench. The
Division Bench in this case took into consideration an
amendment made in Regulation 55 by a resolution dated
25.8.1988 made applicable with retrospective effect. Accord-
ingly the Division Bench allowed the appeal filed by the
Bank, Aggrieved against this order. Shri Soundararajan has
flied Civil Appeal 3394 of 1990 with special leave.
The contention urged by the employees is that the Chief
General Manager, being a lower authority than the Executive
Committee, he had no competence to pass the order of dis-
missal whereas the Bank contends that the Chief General
Manager had, by virtue of the amendment of Regulation
55(2)(a) made retrospectively, become the appointing author-
ity of employees in question and as such the orders of
dismissal passed by him against the employees long after the
amendment are valid.
Allowing the appeals by the State Bank and remanding the
two cases to the High Court and directing that the appeal by
Soundararajan be listed for final hearing, this Court,
HELD: 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. Emolu-
ment of the Government servant and his terms of service are
governed by statute or statutory rule which may be unilater-
ally altered by the Government without the consent of the
employee. [411F-G]
Under Article 311(1) of the Constitution, the words used
are "by which he was appointed"- In regulation 55(2)(a)
there are no such words "by which he was appointed" and in
its place the only right guaranteed is that the employee
shall not be dismissed by an authority lower than the ap-
pointing authority. [410A]
Thus the right guaranteed in case of the officers or
employees of the State Bank is that the order of dismissal
cannot he passed by an
400
authority lower than the appointing authority. [410B]
The right whatsoever conferred on the employees of the
State Bank was on the basis of Regulation 55(2)(a) and the
Central Board of the Bank was authorised to amend such
regulations from any date under Section 50(2)(a) of the Act.
This provision now concludes the controversy if any and
clearly provides that the appointing authority shall mean
and include the authority who has been designated as such at
the time when such order is passed. [412B; 410H]
State of Jammu & Kashmir v. Triloki Nath Khosa & Ors.,
[1974] 1 S.C.R. 771; Bishun Narain Misra v. The State of
Uttar Pradesh & Ors., A.I.R. 1965 Vol. 52 S.C. 1567; Roshan
Lal Tandon v. Union of India & Anr. and Kunj Behari v. Union
of India & Ors., A.I.R. 1967 S.C. (Vol. 54) 1889, referred
to.
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 3392-
3394 of 1990.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 11
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.11. 1989 of the
Andhra Pradesh High Court in W.A. No. 269/89, dated
30.8.1988 in W.P. No. 12041/84 and dated 26.11.1987 in W.P.
No. 194 of 1983.
P.K. Goswamy, Additional Solicitor General, M.K.
Ramamurthy, C. Sitaramaiya, M.L. Paul, Kailash Vasdev, Ms.
M.M. Rasaily, M.A. Krishnamurthy, Mrs. C. Ramamurthy,
T.V.S.N. Chari, Mrs. B. Sunita Rao and Ms. Majula Gupta for
the Appearing Parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
KASLIWAL, J. Special leave granted.
All the above cases are disposed of by one single order
as identical questions of law are involved in all these
cases. In order to appreciate the controversy, facts in
brief are stated of all these cases.
SLP No. 4176 of 1988:
The respondent Vijaya Kumar was appointed as a Proba-
tionary Officer (Gr. I Officer) by an Order of the Executive
Committee of the Central Board of the State Bank of India on
7.12.71. The respondent was charge sheeted in respect of
gross irregularities and corrupt
?401
practices and was ultimately dismissed from service by an
order dated 22.12.88 passed by the Chief General Manager of
the Bank. Shri Vijay Kumar filed a writ petition No. 194/83
before the Andhra Pradesh High Court challenging his order
of dismissal. A Division Bench of the High Court heard the
writ petition alongwith writ appeal 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 afore-
said 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 compe-
tent to pass an order of dismissal.
SLP No. 15235 of 1988:
In this case the respondent T. Dayakar Rao was appointed
as a Clerk in the State Bank of India in the month of Octo-
ber, 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 chargesheeted for irregularities
committed by him during the period 1.9.79 to 15.6.80. Disci-
plinary proceedings were initiated on 29.7.82. On 6.3.84 the
Chief General Manager in the capacity of disciplinary au-
thority passed an order of dismissal. T. Dayakar Rao filed a
writ petition No. 1204/84 in the High Court. The Division
Bench of the High Court by an order dated 13th August, 1988
allowed the writ petition following the decision of Division
Bench given in writ appeal No. 141/86 dated 26.11.87. The
Bank aggrieved against the aforesaid order has filed the
Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitu-
tion.
SLP No. 2069 of 1990:
In this case Shri A.K. Soundararajan appellant was
appointed as Technical Officer by an order dated 14.6.68 of
the Executive Committee of the Central Board of the Bank. It
was mentioned in the Order that Shri Soundararajan would be
governed by the State Bank of India (Officers & Assistants)
Service Rules. Post of Technical Officer was considered
equivalent to Staff Officer Grade III under the Rules. He
was suspended and given a chargesheet on 23.4.82 and was
dismissed by an order dated 31.3.83 passed by the Chief
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 11
General Manager. Shri Soundararajan filed a writ petition
No. 7108/85 in the High Court challenging his order of
dismissal. Learned Single Judge of the High
402
Court by order dated 31.10.88 allowed the writ petition by
following the decision given by the Division Bench in writ
petition No. 1204/84 in the case of T. Dayakar Rao. The
State Bank aggrieved against the order of the learned Single
Judge filed an appeal before the Division Bench. The Divi-
sion Bench in this case took into consideration an amendment
made in Regulation 55 by a resolution dated 25.8.88 made
applicable with retrospective effect. The Division Bench by
Order dated 30th November, 1989 allowed the appeal filed by
the Bank. Shri A.K. Soundararajan aggrieved against the
Order of the High Court has filed this Special Leave Peti-
tion.
It would be necessary to narrate the facts of SLP (C)
No. 5139/88 (State Bank of India v. Hanumantha Rao) disposed
of by an order of this Court dated 30th January, 1990.
Hanumantha Rao was promoted as Grade I Officer on
1.4.1973 by the Executive Committee of the Central Board of
State Bank of India. In 1979 he was posted as the Manager of
a branch of the Bank in Warangal District. In respect of
certain alleged acts of misfeasance/malfeasance he was
suspended on 17.8.81. On 4.5.82 a memo of charges was served
on Hanumantha Rao by the Chief General Manager of the Bank.
The Chief General Manager of the State Bank of India, local
head office Hyderabad dismissed Hanumantha Rao by an order
dated 7.1.84. Hanumantha Rao filed a writ petition No.
5509/84 in the High Court. Learned Single Judge allowed the
writ petition declaring the order of dismissal as incompe-
tent 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.
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 unnec-
essary for us to go into the merits of the contentions urged
by way of cross-objections. There is no question of
403
any enquiry or further enquiry hereafter. We may mention in
this connection that the learned counsel for the petitioner
(respondent in this Writ Appeal) offered to file a petition
to bring on record the legal representatives of the deceased
writ-petitioner as respondents in this Writ Appeal since,
according to him, they would be entitled in any event to
claim the monetary benefits flowing from the orders of this
Court. Now that we have agreed with the learned single Judge
that the order of dismissal was incompetent and invalid, we
direct that the writ petitioner shall be treated to be under
suspension pending enquiry till 24.11. 1987 and all the
monetary benefits that he is entitled to on that basis,
including the arrears of suspension allowance, shall be paid
over to his legal representatives. Mr. Prasad will file the
legal representatives petition within two weeks from today.
Post this Writ Appeal for orders after two weeks.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 11
The Writ Appeal, accordingly, fails and is dis-
missed, but, in the circumstances, without costs."
The Bank aggrieved against the aforesaid order filed the
SLP No. 5139/88 before this Court. Taking note of the facts
and circumstances of the case of Hanumantha Rao having died
on 24.11.87 leaving behind 14 children, this Court on 30th
January, 1990 did not consider if fit to interfere with
impugned order of the Division Bench. It was further made
clear that even though this Court was not interfering with
the impugned order, the questions raised on behalf of the
Bank were left open. The Bank was directed to treat Hanuman-
tha Rao in service and pay the dues, arrears of salary and
other terminal benefits in accordance with law to his legal
representatives. With these observations, the SLP was dis-
missed.
The question which calls for consideration in all these
cases is whether the order of dismissal could be passed by
the Chief General Manager who was lower in rank to the
Executive Committee who was the appointing authority in
these cases.
In order to appreciate this controversy, it would be
proper to give reference of the relevant provisions of the
State Bank of India Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as
the Act), State Bank of India General Regulations, 1955
(hereinafter referred to as the Regulations) and the State
Bank of India (Supervising Staff) Service Rules, 1975
404
(hereinafter referred to as the Rules).
Section 43 of the Act empowers the State Bank to appoint
such number of officers, Advisors and Employees as it con-
siders necessary or desirable for the efficient performance
of its functions and to determine the terms and conditions
of their appointments and service.
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.
Section 50(1) of the Act confers powers on the Central
Board of Directors of the Bank to make regulations.
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.
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 subsection (1) of
Section 50 of the Act.
Regulation 55(2)(a) deals with the initial appointments
and promotions to various categories of employees in the
bank. Initially the appointments of Officers used to be made
only by the Executive Committee as provided in Regulation
55(2)(a). As the bank grew larger in branches, the bank
thought fit to vest the power of appointment and promotion
to various functionaries of the bank and also gave power to
delegate their power of appointment also. Regulation
55(2)(a) was thus substituted by a resolution dated 18th
August, 1971 of the Central Board. After this resolution for
Officers Grade I & II,the appointing authorities were speci-
fied as the Secretary and Treasurer or the Managing Director
respectively depending upon whether the appointment/promo-
tion is for service in the Circle or the Central office. The
State Bank of India Officers & Assistants Rules which govern
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 11
the service conditions of Grade I Officer whether they were
Probationary Officers or Trainee Officers and Staff Officers
followed the scheme of "appointing authority" laid down in
the Regulations.Regulation 55(2)(a) was again amended by a
resolution of the Central
405
Board on 11th July, 1972. By this amendment there was only a
terminological regrouping of the earlier regulation rather
than any qualitative change. The State Bank Laws (Amendment)
Act, 1973 introduced various amendments and one of the
amendments was relating to change of designation of Secre-
tary and Treasurer as Chief General Manager. Hence the
Central Board vide its resolution dated 29.3.74 for the
words "Secretary & Treasurer" substituted "Chief General
Manager." The service conditions of all Officers came to be
brought under a single set of service rules viz. the State
Bank of India (Supervising Staff) Service Rules which came
into force on 1.7.75. It would be important to mention that
Regulation 55(2)(a) at all relevant period for our purpose
recognized the right of the officers or employees of the
Bank under the following clause "such officers or employees
shall not be dismissed from service of the State Bank by an
authority lower than the appointing authority." Clause (f)
of Rule 3 of the State Bank of India (Supervising Staff)
Service Rules which is relevant for our purposes reads as
under:
(f) "Appointing Authority" means--
(i) in the case of Officers Grade II and Grade I and of
other employees to whom the salary scales applicable to
Officers Grade II and Grade I generally apply with or with-
out modification, the Chief General Manager concerned or the
Managing Director 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 em-
ployees to whom the salary, scales applicable to Senior
Staff Appointments generally apply with or without modifica-
tion, the Executive Committee;
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 disci-
plinary proceedings against an employee.
406
(ii) The Disciplinary Authority or any Authority higher than
it may impose any of the penalties in rule 49 on an employ-
ee.
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 serving
in the areas in its jurisdiction.
2(a) The appointing and/or promoting authority for various
categories/grades of officers and employees shall be such as
the Executive Committee may by general or special order
designate from time to time.
(b) No officer or employee of the Bank shall be dismissed,
discharged, removed or retired from the service of the Bank
or reduced to a lower grade or post or to a lower stage in a
time scale by an authority lower than the appointing author-
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 11
ity. Explanation (For the purpose of clause (b) the term
’appointing authority’ shall mean and include the authority
who has been designated as such in respect of such class or
grade of officers or employees to which the officer or
employee concerned, as the case may be belongs at the time
when such Order is passed or any proceeding leading to such
Order or termination is initiated. )
(c) Nothing in this sub-regulation shall affect the powers
of a disciplinary authority appointed or notified under any
award, settlement under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947,
governing, affecting or regulating the service conditions of
workmen of the Bank, and for the purpose of clause (b)
above, the appointing authority shall be deemed to have been
substituted by such disciplinary authority.
(d) The salary and other emoluments to be granted to offi-
cers and other employees shall be as laid down in the Rules
of Service approved by the Central Board and, where no such
rules have been laid down, as fixed by the Executive Commit-
tee.
407
(e) The power to grant pensions to officers and other em-
ployees leaving the service of the State Bank, other than
pensions provided for under the Rules of pension funds
respectively applicable to them, shall be reserved to the
Central Board.
(f) The grant of gratuities or other financial assistance,
either temporary or permanent, to widows, children or other
dependents of deceased officers or other employees shall be
made by the Executive Committee of the Central Board except
where grant of any such gratuity or financial assistance is
authorised by any general direction given by the Central
Board. Explanation (The term ’Officers’ in this regulation
shall include any employee to whom the rules of service
generally applicable to officers, apply with or without
modification.) (Sub-regulation (2) substituted with effect
from 1.10.79)."
The Executive Committee of the Bank passed the following
resolution on August 30, 1988:
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:
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.
Column I Column II
Employees working at branches
i) Employees other a) Subordinate the concerned
than officers Staff Branch Manager
and deputy
General Manager
ii) Clerical the concerned
Staff Regional Manager
and Dy. General
Manager.
b) Employees working at LHOs/
408
Regional Offices and
their establishments
---------------------------
The concerned Office
Manager/ Admn. Officer at
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 11
Staff Colleges or Insti-
tutes Manager Dy. Chief
Manager or, where there is
no post of above descrip-
tions the head of con-
cerned dept/office.
ii) Officers in The Chief General Manager
junior management for appointments/promotions in the
Grade Scale I Circle and the Chief General
and Middle Manager (Personnel & HRD) in
Management Central Office for Central
Grade Scale II Office establishment.
iii) Officers in The Deputy Managing Director
Middle Management
Grade Scale III
iv) Officers in The Managing Director
Senior Management
Grade Scale IV, V
v) Officers in Top Recommending Authority:
Executive Grade
Scale VI, VII The Directors Promotion Committee
and special consisting of the Chairman, the
scales Managing Director and the Director
nominated by the Central Government
in terms of clause (e),
sub-section (1) of Section 19 and
the Director nominated by the
Reserve Bank of India in terms
of clause (f) of sub-section (1)
of Section 19 of the Act.
Promoting/Appointing Authority:
The Executive Committee of the Cen-
tral Board.
409
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 autho-
rised by the Chief General Manager (Personnel & HRD) in
respect of JMGS I after 1.10.79 are also confirmed hereby.
All the employees of the bank in the cases before us
where appointed by the Executive Committee. Order of dis-
missal in their cases has been passed by the Chief General
Manager. It is an admitted position that on the date of
passing the order of dismissal the Chief General Manager was
the appointing authority. According to the Bank though the
employees were appointed by the Executive Committee, but at
the time when inquiry was held and the order of dismissal
passed, the Chief General Manager had become the appointing
authority. On the other hand the contention on behalf of the
employees is that the Executive Committee being the appoint-
ing authority, no authority lower than the Executive Commit-
tee can pass the order of dismissal in their cases. Accord-
ing to their contention the Chief General Manager, being a
lower authority than the Executive Committee, he had no
competence to pass the order of dismissal. Learned counsel
for the employees in this regard referred to Article 311 of
the Constitution of India and placed reliance on a plethora
of cases decided on the basis of guarantee enshrined under
Article 311 of the Constitution.
The guarantee clause under Article 311(1) of the Consti-
tution of India which is relevant for our purpose reads as
under:
"No person who is a member of a Civil Service of the Union
or an All India Service or a Civil Service of a State or
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 11
holds a Civil post under the Union or a State shall be
dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to that by
which he was appointed."
Now so far as the right which has been conferred on the
employees of the State Bank contained in Regulation 55(2)(a)
is that such officers or employees shall not be dismissed
from service of the State Bank by an authority lower than
the appointing authority. Thus a comparison of the provi-
sions contained in Article 311(1) of the Constitution and
the right guaranteed to the employees of the State Bank
under Regulation 55(2)(a) shows that there is a material
difference between the language used in the two provisions.
Under Arti-
410
cle 311(1) the words used are "by which he was appointed."
In Regulation 55(2)(a) there are no such words "by which he
was appointed" and in its place the only right guaranteed is
that the employee shall not be dismissed by an authority
lower than the appointing authority. Thus the right guaran-
teed in case of the officers or employees of the State Bank
is that the order of dismissal cannot be passed by an au-
thority lower than the appointing authority. A perusal of
the relevant Regulations and Rules mentioned above clearly
go to show that the 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 amend-
ments 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 author-
ity 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 protec-
tion 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 Regula-
tions. The only right conferred under the said provision is
that the officers or employees of the State Bank cannot be
dismissed by an authority lower than the appointing authori-
ty. With the risk of repetition it may be stated that on the
date when the order of dismissal has been passed, Chief
General Manager had already become the appointing authority
and as such the order of dismissal has not been passed by an
authority lower than the appointing authority.
Apart from the view taken by us as mentioned above the
Regulation 55 has been amended by a resolution of the Cen-
tral Board dated August 25, 1988 with retrospective effect.
It has now been made clear in the explanation that for the
purpose of clause (b) the term appointing authority shall
mean and include the authority who has been designated as
such in respect of such class or grade of officers or em-
ployees to which the officer or employee concerned, as the
case may be belongs at the time when such order is passed or
any proceedings leading to such order or termination is
initiated. This provision now concludes the controversy if
any and clearly provides that the appointing authority shall
mean and include the authority who has
411
been designated as such at the time when such order is
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 11
passed. It was contended on behalf of the Learned counsel
for the employees that the Bank had no power to amend the
Regulations with retrospective effect. We see no force in
this contention. Section 50(2)(a) of the Act clearly pro-
vides that all regulations made under this section shall
have effect from such earlier or later date as may be speci-
fied in the regulation. Thus the regulations can be made to
give effect from earlier dates also as may be specified in
the regulations. We find no force in the contention of
learned counsel for the employees that they had vested right
in this regard and the same could not have been taken away
by making regulations with retrospective effect. There
cannot be any vested right in such a matter. As already
mentioned above it was a right conferred under Regulation
55(2)(a) and the same can be amended with retrospective
effect also in case the authority competent to make regula-
tions has been given a right to make regulations with retro-
spective effect. It has been held in State of Jammu & Kash-
mir v. Triloki Nath Khosa & Ors., S.C.R. 1974 Vol. 1771 that
it is well settled that a Government servant acquires a
’status’ on appointment to his office and as a result his
rights and obligations are 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 Others, AIR 1965 Vol. 52 SC
1567 it was held that new rule reducing the age of retire-
ment 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 & Anr., and Kunj Behari v. Union of
India & Ors., AIR 1967 SC Vol. 541889 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. Emolu-
ment of the Government servant and his terms of service are
governed by statute or statutory rules which may be unilat-
erally altered by he Government without the consent of the
employee. It was further held in the above case that the
petitioner had no vested contractual right in regard to the
terms of his service and that the same can be altered uni-
laterally. We may further add that the prohibition if any to
alter the terms and conditions can be found only under the
Constitution of India and in case power of the rule or law
making authority is not circumscribed or limited by any
constitutional
412
mandate then it has power to amend such terms and conditions
of service unilaterally without the consent of the employee.
In the cases in hand before us the right whatsoever con-
ferred on the employees of the State Bank was on the basis
of Regulation 55(2)(a) and the Central Board of the Bank was
authorised to amend such regulations from any date under
Section 50(2)(a) of the Act.
In the result the appeals filed by the State Bank of
India in the case of Vijaya Kumar and T. Dayakar Rao are
allowed, the impugned orders passed by the High Court are
set aside and the cases are remanded to the High Court for
deciding the writ petitions on other points in accordance
with law. Now so far as the appeal filed by Sh. A.K. Sunda-
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 11
rarajan is concerned, the point decided by us shall remain
concluded but the appellant would be free to raise other
points before this Court which are left undetermined. This
case may now be listed for further hearing and final dispos-
al at an early date.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties
shall bear their own costs.
Y. Lal C.A. No. 3392 & 3393 of 1990
allowed. C.A. No. 3394 of 1990
ordered to be listed for final
heating.
413