Disciplinary Proceedings After Retirement: Void Jurisdiction. Legal fiction of continuation in service does not apply when disciplinary proceedings are initiated post-retirement.

Case Note & Summary

This case examines the jurisdiction to initiate disciplinary proceedings after an officer’s superannuation. The Supreme Court ruled that such proceedings, initiated post-retirement or post-extended service, lack jurisdiction and are void-ab-initio. Consequently, the penalty imposed on the respondent was quashed, and all due benefits were directed to be released.

1. Facts and Background: Appointment and Superannuation: Respondent joined SBI in 1973 and was due to retire in 2003 upon completing 30 years of service. His service was extended to October 1, 2010. Allegations: Accused of irregular loan sanctions during extended service. Notice issued on August 18, 2009. Disciplinary Action: Suspension followed on August 21, 2009. A charge memo was issued post-retirement on March 18, 2011. 2. Legal Provisions Discussed: Rule 19 of SBI Service Rules: Governs retirement contingencies and disciplinary proceedings post-superannuation. Section 68(1): Disciplinary action must initiate during service or deemed continuation. Judicial Precedents: Cases like Union of India vs. K.V. Janakiraman and UCO Bank vs. Rajinder Lal Capoor clarified that disciplinary proceedings commence only upon issuance of a charge memo. 3. Key Legal Findings: Jurisdiction: The charge memo issued on March 18, 2011, was post-retirement (October 1, 2010), making proceedings void-ab-initio. Legal Fiction: Under Rule 19(3), proceedings initiated pre-superannuation could continue post-retirement. However, no such initiation occurred. No Master-Servant Relationship: Post-October 1, 2010, the respondent was no longer in service. 4. Ratio Decidendi:

Disciplinary proceedings must be initiated during service or deemed service through legal fiction. Initiation post-retirement violates jurisdiction, rendering all consequential actions invalid.

Acts and Sections Discussed: State Bank of India Act, 1955 State Bank of India Officers’ Service Rules, 1992 Rule 19(1): Retirement contingencies (age of 60, 30 years of service, or pensionable service). Rule 19(3): Disciplinary proceedings continuation post-superannuation. Judicial precedents: Union of India vs. K.V. Jankiraman, UCO Bank vs. Rajinder Lal Capoor. Subjects:

Employment Law, Disciplinary Proceedings, Retirement Jurisprudence

 #DisciplinaryProceedings #EmploymentLaw #Retirement #Jurisdiction