Removed SBI Employee To Receive 50% Benefits Until Reinstatement As Patna HC Allows Bank To Resume Inquiry After Fair-Hearing Breach

The respondent, a Senior Assistant with the State Bank of India, was removed from service on 14 November 2009 after a departmental inquiry found the charges against him proved.

He challenged the removal and the dismissal of his departmental appeal, alleging breaches of natural justice, including failure to supply the list of documents, list of witnesses and statement of imputations, and failure to examine the authors of documents relied upon

The Single Judge set aside the disciplinary and appellate orders and directed payment of 50% of monetary benefits for the period from removal until superannuation.

The Bank appealed, contending that the matter should have been remitted to the Disciplinary Authority to continue the inquiry from the point at which natural justice had been breached.

The Court referred to Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India v. A. Masilamani, (2013) 6 SCC 530; Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad v. B. Karunakar, (1993) 4 SCC 727; and U.P. State Spinning Co. Ltd. v. R.S. Pandey, (2005) 8 SCC 264.

The Bank relied on these decisions for the proposition that where a dismissal or removal is set aside for breach of natural justice, the matter may be remitted to the competent authority to proceed in accordance with law.

The Court accepted the submission that the disciplinary proceedings could resume from the stage at which the breach occurred.

No statute was identified as a basis for the decision.

The Court noted that the respondent, aged 42 when he filed the writ petition, was about 58 at the time of the appeal and had not yet reached superannuation.

Given that the removal had been set aside for procedural reasons and the charges were described as serious, the Court considered that the Bank should be allowed to inquire into them in accordance with natural justice.

It therefore accepted the Bank’s request to remit the proceedings, rather than leave the matter concluded by the Single Judge’s order.

It also modified the monetary-benefit direction to cover the period until reinstatement and left the Disciplinary Authority to regulate the intervening period.

The respondent was directed to receive 50% of monetary benefits from the date of removal until reinstatement, while the Bank was granted liberty to continue the departmental proceedings pursuant to the charge-sheet dated 22 August 2007, from the stage at which natural justice had been violated.

The Disciplinary Authority may regulate the intervening period, and the proceedings were directed to be completed preferably within six months of receipt or production of the order.