5567/1995 challenging the decision of the respondent bank number to grant an extension to him.
Consequently, the appellant was relegated to Middle Management Scale IV, virtually resulting in the forfeiture of almost more than a decades service of the appellant.
The respondents are directed to companystitute a fresh companymittee of the personnel mentioned in the rule itself.
The appellants Writ Petition No.
After about six months, the transfer of the appellant was cancelled and he was permitted to join in the demoted post as Officer on Special Duty, Zonal Office, Chandigarh.
The appellant joined the demoted post of Secretary, Banking Services Recruitment Board, Chandigarh, though under protest.
Promotion Matter The learned companynsel for the appellant elaborately pointed out the history of the litigation between the parties companymencing from the first showcause numberice given to the appellant and the final order made against him.
Notice dated 28th December, 1992 shall stand withdrawn.
Purpose of supplying document is to companytest its veracity or give explanation.
The appellant thereupon filed Civil Writ Petition No.15245/1993 before the High Court by which he impugned the action of the respondent bank in number granting him the promotion he sought.
The memorandum titled Executive Selection System, prepared for the Central Board of the respondent bank dated 21.2.1984 in respect of the promotion system inter alia for TEGS VI, TEGS VII, TEG Special Scale, numbered vide paragraph 2 The system is essentially merit based, seniority being given due weightage for the purpose of reckoning eligibility among officers of equal merit or suitability, seniority would companynt .
He was also informed that the Review Committee had number recommended further extension of his service in terms of Rule 15 of the State Bank of India Service Rules as a result of which, the appellant would retire on attaining the age of superannuation with effect from 10.9.1993.
We agree with the view of the Division Bench in this regard.
Hence, the Division Bench was right in its view that there was numberquestion of the policy of 1989 being applied retrospectively in the case of the appellant.
Accordingly, in pursuance of the time bound directions of this Court, the Executive Body of the respondent bank decided on 27.5.1994 to formally companystitute a three member companymittee companyprising S. Doreswamy, Chairman cum Managing Director, Central Bank of India as its Chairman Competent Authority, and the two other members were R. Vishwanathan, Deputy Managing Director Commercial Banking and G. Kathuria, Deputy Manager Director Treasury and Investments Management .
He got repeated promotions during the period 1960 1980, reaching all the way to Top Executive Grade Scale VI hereinafter TEGS VI as a Deputy General Manager on 27.7.1980.
The appellant challenged the investigation and the matter ultimately landed up in this Court.
In case the appellant had made any allegation against any of those Deputy Managing Directors, then the companymittee shall companyprise of Deputy Managing Directors, other than those who are mentioned in the rules.
The recommendations of the companymittee shall be placed before the companypetent authority who shall be different and higher in rank then sic than the members who shall companystitute the companymittee.
The respondent bank companyducted an inquiry and the investigating officials held an ex parte inquiry.
The appellant preferred an appeal before the Chairman of the respondent bank, which was turned down.
Background to the Promotion Issue The appellant joined the respondent bank as Probationary Officer on 15.1.1960.
3/1994, the respondent bank requisitioned the services of S. Doreswamy, Chairman cum Managing Director, Central Bank of India to act as the Chairman Competent Authority of a three member companymittee to make recommendations as to whether the appellants services were to be extended till the age of sixty years.
Subsequently, the appellants posting in Hyderabad was cancelled and he was posted at Chandigarh once again and he retired with effect from 10.9.1993 after working as Deputy General Manager.
The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and granted him the relief sought for.
In the result, this Court was of the view that the inquiry against the appellant had been rightly quashed by the High Court.
553/1991 carried by the respondent bank was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court.
1609/1994 was allowed on 11.3.1994.
He also approached this Court by a Contempt Petition No.
His companytention was that, this had resulted in an institutional bias against the appellant.
It recommended that, at the very least, the appellant be removed from service.
The appellant filed Civil Writ Petition No.
During the aforesaid period, the appellant was number companysidered for promotion to the post of General Manager TEGS VII on 1.8.1984, 20.2.1986, 8.6.1987, 1.8.1988, 24.4.1989 and 3.2.1992.
Leave was granted therein and the resultant Civil Appeal No.
This Court dismissed the appeal by holding that the appellant had been prejudiced in the matter of his defence it was held The order is vitiated number because of mechanical exercise of powers or number supply of the inquiry report but for relying and acting on material which was number only irrelevant but companyld number have been looked into.
1017 18/1993 was disposed of by this Court with the following three directions 1.
The answers given by him to the questions asked, suggest that either he was incapable of answering them or that he was deliberately filibustering the interview.
In view of the abovesaid companyditions, the companytempt proceedings against the two Managing Directors of the respondent bank were dropped.
Leave was granted therein and Civil Appeal Nos.
A Letters Patent Appeal No.
The second companytention of the learned companynsel is that the appellant was a brilliant officer who, between the period 1960 to 1981, had succeeded to the top echelons of the respondent bank by dint of his merit.
It was pointed out that the appellant had made serious allegations against several senior officers, as a result of which, they companyld number be numberinated as members of the Review Committee.
The respondent bank challenged the said judgment of the learned Single Judge in Letters Patent Appeal No.81/1999 in which the cross objections were also filed by the appellant.
10198/1991.
But number supply of CVC recommendation which was prepared behind the back of respondent appellant herein without his participation, and one does number know on what material which was number only sent to the Disciplinary Authority but was examined and relied, was certainly violative of procedural safeguard and companytrary to fair and just inquiry.
Thereafter, he filed Civil Writ Petition No.12062 of 1993, which was also dismissed by the Division Bench on 5.10.1993.
All the three members of the Committee met on 16.6.1994, and recorded the minutes of the proceedings making a recommendation against granting an extension of service to the appellant.
The interviews were to be held by a Committee companysisting of the Managing Director and any one or more of the other members of the Central Management Committee with a view to assessing the officers potential.
As a matter of fact, the appellant retired from service on 9.9.1993 and died in 2005.
4/1995 which was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to impugn it by appropriate proceedings.
The inquiry was companyducted by one A.K. Rastogi, a senior IAS officer, who submitted his report on 30.5.1985 by which he exonerated the appellant of most of the major charges and put on record that most of the charges were fabricated and were intended to denigrate the companyduct of the appellant as a senior and responsible official of the bank.
The Committee awarded him only 25.7 marks as a result of which he was informed by a letter dated 8.9.1993 that his claim for promotion was rejected as he was found unsuitable by the Interview Committee.
Such companymittee shall be companystituted within two weeks from today and the decision by the companypetent authority shall be taken within two weeks thereafter.
The appellant appeared before the Interview Committee on 1.9.1993.
This Contempt Petition was withdrawn on 17.9.1993 with liberty to move the High Court for appropriate relief.
This Court disposed of the appeal by the following operative order In the result, this appeal succeeds and is allowed.
The respondent bank filed I.A. No.
It allowed both the appeals and set aside the judgments of the learned Single Judge by holding that the action of the respondent bank was number liable to be interfered with on any ground.
Further directions were given so as to enable the parties to lead evidence and to ensure that the inquiry was companyducted expeditiously.
The appellant challenged the fresh show cause numberice by filing Contempt Petition No.1098/92 before the High Court in which two Managing Directors of the respondent bank V. Mahadevan and P.V. Subba Rao were made respondents.
While performance on a given job is assessed in terms of the identified key responsibility areas, potential to shoulder the responsibilities in the higher management cadres assumes importance For assessing these factors, the memorandum prescribed vide paragraph 2 iv a supplementary process of structured interview for promotion to Senior Management Grade Scale V and Top Executive Grade Scale VI.
The respondent bank moved this Court by filing Special Leave Petition No.
As we have already pointed out, the other two members of the companymittee were R. Vishwanathan, Deputy Managing Director Commercial Banking and G. Kathuria, Deputy Manager Director Treasury and Investments Management .
The said respondents challenged the initiation of the companytempt proceedings against them, before this Court, by Special Leave Petition Nos.
While learned Single Judge was under the impression that the case of the appellant for promotion was governed by the policy of 1982, the Division Bench rightly points out that by this time the modified policy of 1984 had already companye into force.
In either event, he did number deserve to be selected by the Interview Committee.
15245/1993 was allowed on the ground that, under the policy applicable to the appellants case, an interview by the Departmental Promotion Committee was number envisaged and that his claim for promotion had to be decided by an informal interview by the Managing Director and some other officers.
The appellant made a representation thereagainst to the Chairman of the respondent bank.
3/1994 for clarification of the aforesaid order on the ground that the Chairman and Managing Director is the Appellate Authority and as a companysequence, he companyld number deal with the Committee to companysider the case for extension of the appellant.
The companymittee shall be companystituted within three weeks from today which shall decide if respondent the appellant herein was entitled to be promoted to higher scale and if the companymittee decides that the appellant is number suitable for promotion it shall give reasons therefor.
A departmental appeal carried by the appellant against the order of the penalty imposed on him, was dismissed.
Effect of number supply of the report of Inquiry Officer before imposition of punishment need number be gone into number it is necessary to companysider validity of sub rule 5.
He, however, did number join the post at Bhopal on the ground that it was against the rule for officers of Middle Management Grade Scale to be transferred out of the circle.
He gave an explanation, which was number acceptable to the respondent bank and on 11.7.1981, he was placed under suspension.
The Division Bench of the High Court by its impugned judgment dated 9.3.1999 referred companymonly to the Letter Patent Appeals in the Promotion and Extension matters.
Considering the case of the appellant on each of the relevant dates, the Committee found that although the appellant had obtained 60 marks for performance appraisal, his performance at the interview was very poor as he had obtained only 25.7 marks.
The respondent bank challenged the learned Single Judges judgment by filing Letters Patent Appeal No.
Background to the Extension Issue During the pendency of the litigation between the appellant and the respondent bank, the appellant was granted extension in service from 10.3.1991 to 9.9.1993 i.e. upto the age of fifty eight years by a letter dated 9.9.1993.
324/1993 in Civil Appeal No.
This Court disposed of the matter by a direction that the Central Vigilance Commission appoint an inquiry officer who would re open the inquiry from the stage it was closed.
The orders passed by the High Court, the Appellate Authority and the Review Committee are quashed.
The three member Review Committee would companysider and decide the claim of the appellant for extension of his term in accordance with the rules.
On 17.4.1989, the appellant moved a Civil Writ Petition No.15874/1989 challenging his order of demotion before the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
By the Government of India Circular dated 28.9.1983, guidelines were issued to add to Regulation 17 of the Officers Service Recruitments the following All promotions to Senior Management Grade, Scale V and Top Executive Grade, Scale VI and VII will be made by a Committee of Directors companysisting of the Managing Director, the Government Director and the Reserve Bank of India Director on the basis of the evaluation of the past performance and the assessment of the potential of the eligible officers by the said Committee.
Extension Matter As a result of the order made by this Court in Civil Appeal No.1609/1994 dated 11.3.1994, together with the order made on 13.5.1994 in I.A. No.
Within twenty six days, he was transferred to Bhopal.
364/1998 in which the appellant also filed cross objections.
It was also made clear in the order of this Court that it was number open to the parties to challenge the companystitution of the Committee in any further proceedings.
He then carried Special Leave Petition 17752/1993 to this Court.
The learned Single Judge was of the view that the Committee was biased against the appellant on account of his history of previous litigation that other officers who were number as companypetent as the appellant had been granted extensions up to the age of sixty years and thus, there was discrimination against the appellant.
Hence, they can be disposed of by a companymon judgment.
Also, the appellants case was number companysidered under the sealed companyer procedure pending finalisation of the departmental proceedings.
1707 08/1993.
Counsel also highlighted the fact that all the disciplinary orders had been set aside by this Court from time to time.
The Disciplinary Authority of the respondent bank, through an elaborate order, agreed with the findings of the Central Vigilance Commission, except with regard to the recommendation on the quantum of punishment.
It was also directed that, the Committee be companystituted within two weeks and thereafter the Competent Authority take a decision within two weeks.
He also claimed therein salary from November 1992 to 16.6.1993, which was denied to him on the ground that he had failed to report to Hyderabad where he had been posted and had remained absent without leave.
The earlier Deputy Managing Directors who were the members of the companymittee shall number be members of the new companymittee.
Consequent to the aforesaid Order, on 7.11.1992, the appellant was transferred to Hyderabad as Deputy General Manager, but he refused to join there as a matter of protest and remained absent without leave.
The Chairman accepted the recommendation on the very same day.
The appellants are the legal representatives of one D.C. Aggarwal, an erstwhile employee of the respondentState Bank of India, who have brought these appeals claiming a the benefits of an extension in service of the said D.C. Aggarwal up to the age of sixty years and b the benefits arising out of numberional promotion which ought to have been granted to the said employee, etc.
However, when the appellant was still in service, on 28.12.1992, the appellant was given a fresh showcause numberice for an inquiry against him.
Thus, on each of the relevant dates, the Committee was of the view that his case companyld number be companysidered for promotion to TEGS VII.
Counsel suggested that all the top officers of the respondent bank were biased against the appellant and were unanimously against him.
numberfresh enquiry shall be held against the respondent for the act or companymission for which action was taken against him which resulted in reduction from rank in 1987.
4017 18/1993 for initiation of companytempt proceedings against the respondent bank and its officers.
On 4.1.1981, the appellant was posted as Deputy General Manager of the respondent bank at Chandigarh and was put in charge of the respondent banks branches in the State of Haryana and in the Union Territory of Chandigarh.
Vishwanathan and G. Kathuria held two meetings on 6.6.1994 and 9.6.1994 and on 16.6.1994 recommended to the Chairman Competent Authority that it was number in the interest of the respondent bank to extend the services of the appellant beyond the age of fifty eight years.
Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, the General Manager Operations Chandigarh issued a letter dated 26.8.1993 calling upon the appellant to attend an interview so as to adjudge his suitability for promotion to TEG Scale VII General Managers Post .
The report of A.K. Rastogi was companysidered by the Central Vigilance Commission, which, however, disagreed with his findings and found the charges proved against the appellant.
This order was companyfirmed by the executive companymittee of the respondent bank on 4.11.1987.
Srikrishna, J. These two appeals arise between the same parties and are interconnected.
The appellant once again challenged this by way of Contempt Petition No.
For the purpose of companyvenience, the said D.C. Aggarwal shall be referred to as the appellant in the companyrse of our judgment.
On 8.7.1981, the appellants explanation was called for in respect of some irregularities pertaining to his work.
It found that the recommended punishment of removal from service, was too harsh and instead imposed the punishment of demotion by two grades on the appellant.
The State Bank of India shall reconsider the claim of promotion of the respondent to higher scale in accordance with rules.
Consequently, the learned Single Judge interfered and set aside the recommendation and held that the action of the Review Committee and the Competent Authority was arbitrary.
Thus, the writ petition was allowed and the relevant orders were quashed.
Hence this appeal.
