Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.6821/2009
STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
C.K.KARUNAKARAN Respondent(s)
O R D E R
The respondent was employed with the appellant-bank in the
Middle Management Grade Scale-II and his promotion to Middle
Management Grade Scale-III came up for consideration in November,
1984 when he was interviewed by the Interview Committee which made
its recommendation to the promoting authority. In the meantime,
apparently the disciplinary authority took a decision to initiate
departmental action against the respondent on 28.1.1985. His
explanation was called for on 18.2.1985 and the charge-sheet was
issued on 04.11.1985. In view of the pendency of these disciplinary
proceedings, the promoting authority after considering the
recommendations of the Interview Committee issued a select list on
23.8.1985 but the result of the respondent was kept in a sealed
cover. The charge-sheet resulted in a punishment of censure to the
respondent on 28.7.1987 and thus the promotion was not given effect
to. The order of the disciplinary authority was assailed by the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
RASHI GUPTA
Date: 2021.10.07
17:24:19 IST
Reason:
respondent in departmental appeal and the same was dismissed on
13.12.1988 which attained finality.
1
The grievance of the respondent was that despite the censure,
the sealed cover procedure having been adopted, the same shall have
been given effect to after the period of censure was over. In this
behalf the respondent filed an appeal before the Appellate
Authority on 26.11.1990 but the same was rejected and thus Writ
Petition being O.P. No.8947/1992 was filed before the High Court of
Kerala at Ernakulam directing the bank to consider the case of the
respondent ignoring the sealed cover procedure.
The Writ Petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge in
terms of order dated 30.5.2003 opining that the ex-post facto
decision of imposing censure could not be relied upon for denying
the benefit of promotion and since the decision dated 28.1.1985 to
take disciplinary action against the respondent was the only
impediment standing in the way of the respondent, he is entitled to
the benefit of promotion. The appeal was dismissed by a brief order
dated 30.5.2003 by the Division Bench which has been assailed in
the present appeal. Interim stay of the operation of the order was
granted on 29.9.2009 while granting leave. Respondent from the
inception has not entered appearance in the present proceedings.
We may note at the inception that of the impugned order itself
records that the respondent was subsequently granted promotion.
Thus the issue is only as to whether the respondent could be
entitled to promotion from an earlier date. The other factor which
has been pointed out to us is that the respondent retired in the
year 2003 and is stated to have received all retiral and pensionery
benefits.
2
Learned counsel for the appellant sought to canvas before us
that the appellant bank acted in accordance with its norms of
sealed cover procedure as per staff Circular No.118 (Exhibit P-2).
The relevant part of the Circular is as under:-
“3. Keeping in view the principles of natural justice and
with a view to maintaining uniformity in this regard. It has
been decided to introduce the ‘Sealed Cover Procedure’ in
st
respect of officers in the Bank with effect from the 1
March 1983 on the lines followed by the Government and the
following guidelines are laid down for the purpose:
i) The ‘Sealed Cover Procedure’ would be applicable in
respect of promotion/confirmation of the following
categories of officers:-
(a) Officers against whom disciplinary proceedings have been
contemplated provided there is a prima facie case
against the officer
(b) Officers against whom disciplinary proceedings are in
progress and
(c) Officer who have been placed under suspension.”
It is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant
that the case of the respondent would be covered by sub-clause (a)
of Clause (i) of para 3 as stated aforesaid. As to what would be
the consequence of the same is set out in sub clause (iv)
thereafter which is reproduced hereinunder:-
“iv) Where the department proceedings have ended with the
imposition of a minor penalty, viz. censure, recoveries of
pecuniary loss to the Bank withholding of increments of pay
and withholding of promotion the accommodation of the
Selection Committee in favour of the employees, kept in the
sealed cover, will not be given effect to. But the case of
the employees concerned may be considered at the time of
next promotions immediately after the conclusion of the
departmental proceedings, if the employee is selected for
promotion, he may be promoted in the usual manner alongwith
others if the penalty, is that of ‘ensure’ or ‘recovery of
pecuniary loss’. But in the case of employees, who have been
awarded the minor penality of ‘withholding of increments’ or
‘withholding of promotion’, promotion of the officers
concerned can be made only after the expiry of the period of
his penalty.”
3
Learned counsel for the appellant thus contends that the
respondent was imposed with a minor penalty of censure, the sealed
cover is not to be given effect to but his case may be considered
at the time of next promotion immediately after the conclusion of
the departmental proceedings and he may be promoted if otherwise
eligible. This is what appears to have been done since the
respondent earned his promotion subsequently.
Learned counsel for the appellant seeks to refer on two
judicial pronouncements of this Court for the proposition that even
if there is a minor penalty of the nature of censure, the
recommendation of the DPC cannot be given effect to. In State of
1
M.P. & Anr. Vs. I.A. Qureshi it has been opined that once a minor
penalty has been imposed on the employee in departmental
proceedings, the directions given in respect of the relevant
circular would be applicable and the sealed cover recommendation of
DPC cannot be opened and the recommendation of the DPC cannot be
given effect to because the employee has not been fully exonerated
when a minor penalty has been imposed. The employee can only be
considered for promotion on prospective basis from the date after
the conclusion of the departmental proceeding. Similarly, in Union
2
of India & Ors. Vs. A.N. Mohanan it has been opined that awarding
of censure is a blame worthy factor and where even such a penalty
has been imposed the findings of the sealed cover are not to be
acted upon and the case for promotion may be considered by the next
DPC in the normal course.
1
1998 (9) SCC 261
2 2007 (5) SCC 425
4
We have examined the aforesaid judicial pronouncements which
do give rise to a conclusion that the censure having been imposed
albeit the least of the minor penalty, a recommendation of the
sealed cover procedure cannot be given effect to for promotion.
This is also in conformity with what the relevant rule provide as
under the State Bank of India (Supervising Staff) Service Rules
‘censure’ is mentioned as the first ‘minor penalties’ in Section 2
dealing with ‘disciplinary and appeal’ in paragraph 49. The staff
Circular No.118, quoted aforesaid, provides that once a
disciplinary proceeding has been contemplated provided that the
prima facie case against the officer (which is apparent from the
ultimate penalty imposed) the sealed cover procedure should be
adopted. However, where the said departmental proceedings end with
the imposition of a minor penalty even like a censure, the
recommendations of the selection committee in favour of an
employee, kept in a sealed cover, will not be given effect to and
his case may be considered only in the next promotion immediately
thereafter.
On the aforesaid principles applying to the facts of the
present case, a recommendation was made to the promoting authority
in November, 1984 but soon thereafter the disciplinary authority
took a decision to initiate departmental action against the
respondent on 28.1.1985, before the promoting authority could take
a view on the recommendation of the interview committee, a notice
was issued calling upon the response of the respondent. Before
issuance of a charge-sheet, in contemplation of the aforesaid
disciplinary proceedings, the promoting authority issued a select
5
list on 23.8.1985 keeping the result of the respondent in a sealed
cover. If the punishment would not have been ultimately imposed,
the question of giving effect to the result of the sealed cover
procedure would have arisen. However, the charge-sheet issued on
04.11.1985 resulted in a punishment of censure on 28.7.1987 and the
departmental appeal against the same was dismissed making that
aspect final. The consequence was that the sealed cover was not
given effect in terms of the aforesaid rules.
In view of the aforesaid position, we are of the view, that
the impugned orders of learned Single Judge dated 30.5.2003 and the
Division Bench dated 17.10.2008 cannot be sustained and are set
aside and the appeal is allowed leaving parties to bear their own
costs.
We may only add in the end that the respondent having earned
his promotion albeit belatedly as stated aforesaid, is a possible
reason why he may not have joined the present proceedings.
…………………………………………J.
(SANJAY KISHAN KAUL)
…………………………………………J.
(M.M. SUNDRESH)
New Delhi;
th
30 September, 2021
6
ITEM NO.105 COURT NO.6 SECTION XI-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal No(s).6821/2009
STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
C.K.KARUNAKARAN Respondent(s)
Date : 30-09-2021 This appeal was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. SUNDRESH
For Appellant(s) Mr. Sanjay Kapur, AOR
Ms. Megha Karnwal, Adv.
Mr. V. M. Kannan, Adv.
Mrs. Shubhra Kapur, Adv.
For Respondent(s)
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Civil appeal is allowed in terms of the signed reportable
order.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(RASHMI DHYANI) (POONAM VAID)
COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
(Signed reportable order is placed on the file)
7