Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12733 of 2011 ====================================================== Kunal Singh, son of Sri Ranjeet Singh, resident of Dighi Tank West, Rahman Miya Ki Gali, Ner Civil Court, P.O. Head Post Office, Gaya, P.S. Ciuvil Lines, District Gaya .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Bank of India through its Chairman, Corporate Centre, Free Press Journal Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai 2. Chairman, State Bnak of India, Corporate Centre, Free Press Journal Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai 3. The Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, Central Recruitment and Promotion Department, Corporate Centre, Free Press Journal Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai 4. The General Manager, Network-II, State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Patna. ====================================================== .... .... Respondent/s with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11245 of 2011 ======================================================
Legal Reasoning
Brijesh Singh Mehta, son of Sri Umesh Singh Mehta, resident of Village + P.O. Dugal, P.S. Kasma, District Aurangabad, Bihar .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar through D.M.Patna 2. The Chairman, State Bank of India, Ist Floor, State Bank Bhawan, Near Vidhan Sabha, Mumbai 3. The General Manager ( N.W.-II), S.B.I., Local Head Office, West Gandhi Maidan, Patna 4. The Assistant General Manager ( HR).S.B.I., Local Head Office, West Gandhi Maidan, Patna 5. The Deputy Managing Director, Central Recruitment Promotion 2 Patna High Court CWJC No.12733 of 2011 (6) dt.01-02-2013 2 / 9 Department, State Bank of India, Corporate Centre, Mumbai ====================================================== .... .... Respondent/s with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11850 of 2011 ====================================================== Amrita Kumari, D/O Shri Pramod Kumar, resident of Hari Narayan Nagar, Barmasia,Dhanbad-826001, Local Address Global I.T.C. Pratap Path, Ram Krishna Nagar, Patna-800026 .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Bank of India through the Chairman, 18th Floor, State Bank Bhawan, Near Vidhan Sabha, Nariman, Mumbai 2. The General Manager ( N.W.-II), State Bank of India, West Gandhi Maidan, Patna-1 3. The Chief Marketing Executive, State Bank of India, N.P.S.T. Metro Tower, Near Global Complex,Ranchi ====================================================== .... .... Respondent/s with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11893 of 2011 ====================================================== Asim Kumar, aged about 26 years, son of Sri Arbind Kumar Sinha, resident of Village and P.O. Sain, Via, Kanti, P.S.Kanti, District Muzaffarpur .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. State Bank of India through the Chairman, 18th Floor,State Bank Bhawan, near Vidhan Sabha, Nariman, Mumbai 2. General Manager ( N.W.-II), State Bank of India, West Gandhimaidan, Patna-1 3. Assistant General Manager,Regional Business Office (V), SBI, Teekay Complex, Tinplate Chown, Golmuri, Jamshedpur-831003 ====================================================== .... .... Respondent/s with 3 Patna High Court CWJC No.12733 of 2011 (6) dt.01-02-2013 3 / 9 Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12687 of 2011 ====================================================== 1. Alok Kumar, son of Shaini Yadav, resident of Village Dumari, P.O. Afjla Balia, Via and P.S.Biraul,District Darbhanga 2. Anand Kumar, son of Sri Shashi Kant Singh, resident of At Belbanwa, Motihari,District East Champaran,Bihar 3. Chandrashekhar Kumar,son of Sri Anirudha Ram Das, at Asarganj, Hat Road, adjacent to Mother Teressa School, PO and P.S.Asarganj,District Munger 4. Chandan Kumar, son of Sri Brijnath Prasad, resident of Village Bahaura, P.O. Sohagopalpur, P.S.Gaurichak, District patna .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Bank of India through its Chairman, Corporate Centre, Free Press Journal Marg, Nariman point, Mumbai 2. Chairman, State Bank of India, Corporate Centre, Free Press Journal Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai 3. The Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, Central Recruitment and Promotion Department, Corporate Centre, Free Press Journal Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai 4. The General Manager, Network-II, State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Patna ====================================================== .... .... Respondent/s Appearance : (In CWJC No.12733 of 2011) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Akashdeep, Advocate Mr. Shyameshwar Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh, Advocate (In CWJC No.11245 of 2011) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Jha, Advocate Mr. Ganesh Gunjan, Advocate Mr. Pawan Kumar, Advocate For the State of Bihar : Mr. Rajiv Roy, GP-5 Mr. B.K.Singh, A.C. to GP-5 4 Patna High Court CWJC No.12733 of 2011 (6) dt.01-02-2013 4 / 9 For the Respondent Bank : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh, Advocate (In CWJC No.11850 of 2011) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, Sr. Advocate Mr. Ravi Shekhar Singh, Advocate For the Respondent Bank : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh, Advocate (In CWJC No.11893 of 2011) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, Sr. Advocate Mr. Ravi Shekhar Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh, Advocate (In CWJC No.12687 of 2011) For the Petitioner/s : M/s. Mallika Mazumdar, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER 6 01-02-2013 In this batch of writ petitions, the issues of facts and issues of law involved are identical and similar, therefore, with consent of the parties all the matters have been heard together and
Decision
are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The petitioners in this batch of writ petitions have challenged the validity and correctness of the order dated 11.6.2011 issued to them separately under the signature of respondent General Manager (Appointing Authority) of the State Bank of India, whereby in terms of Rule 16(3) of State Bank of India Officers Service Rules (hereinafter referred to as Rules in short), they have been discharged from the services of the respondent Bank. 3. It is common case of the parties that an advertisement was issued by the respondent State Bank of India on 1.7.2008 inviting on-line applications from eligible Indian citizens for appointment as Probationary Officers in the State 5 Patna High Court CWJC No.12733 of 2011 (6) dt.01-02-2013 5 / 9 Bank of India. Originally, preliminary examination was held of all the candidates including the petitioners, and on being successful, finally, main examination was held on 30.11.2008, whereafter, all these petitioners were declared to be successful. The petitioner(s) of each writ petitions were issued separate letter/offer of appointment and they all were asked to join on 15th May, 2009. 4. The petitioners claim that they all had joined the post within the time prescribed by the respondent Bank. As per the terms of offer of appointment, all the petitioners were required to undergo a probation period of two years. While the petitioners were undergoing probation, a written test was conducted on 27.2.2011 for the purpose of their confirmation in the service of respondent Bank. The petitioners claim that they all appeared in the aforesaid written test held on 27.2.2011 and performed well. It is also the admitted case of the parties that the aforesaid written test was conducted by The Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (in short „IBPS‟), which is an independent Expert Body engaged in conducting recruitments for various services. The result of the aforesaid written test was published on 9.5.2011. Unfortunately, the petitioners‟ names were not there amongst the successful candidates. However, probation period of all the petitioners were extended for three months by separate letters dated 13.5.2011 issued to them separately in terms of Rule 16 (2) of the aforesaid Rules. Before completion of extended period of probation of three months, the impugned order dated 11.6.2011 was issued separately to all the petitioners discharging them from service of the respondent Bank in terms of Rule 16 (3) of the Rules. 5. While assailing the aforesaid impugned order 6 Patna High Court CWJC No.12733 of 2011 (6) dt.01-02-2013 6 / 9 dated 11.6.2011, learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner(s) in each case have submitted that the impugned order has been passed without giving them reasonable opportunity of hearing, and, therefore, it is not sustainable in the eye of law for violation of Rules of natural justice. 6. In all the cases, separate counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of the respondent State Bank of India. The pleas taken in all the counter affidavits are almost same and common. It has been stated in the counter affidavits that in view of the report submitted by IBPS, all the petitioners are suspected to have indulged in unfair means in the written test held on 27.2.2011 for their confirmation. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Bank submits that discharge of the petitioners from service in terms of Rules 16 (3) of the Rules is simpliciter and no stigma has been attached. Therefore, the petitioners were/are not entitled to have an opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned order dated 11.6.2011. 7. However, learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties are unanimous in their submissions that the issuers raised in the present proceedings are no longer res- integra in view of judgment dated 3.12.2012 passed in Civil Appeal Nos. 7841- 7842 of 2012 by the Hon‟ble Apex Court. According to them, identical matters came up for consideration before the Allahabad High Court in writ petition nos. 1298 of 2011 and 1512 of 2011. In the aforesaid two writ petitions orders of respondent Bank were under challenge, wherein on the allegation of using unfair means the aforesaid two writ petitioners were discharged from service in terms of Rule 16 (3) of the Rules. The Allahabad High Court allowed those two writ petitions by an order dated 17.11.2011. 7 Patna High Court CWJC No.12733 of 2011 (6) dt.01-02-2013 7 / 9 The State Bank of India and its functionaries, being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order dated 17.11.2011 passed by a Division Bench of Allahabad High Court, approached the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 7841-7842 of 2012. The Hon‟ble Apex Court has finally dismissed the aforesaid appeals filed on behalf of the respondent State Bank of India and its functionaries by a judgment dated 3.12.2012, which has been brought on record as Annexure-9 to the I.A. No. 140 of 2013 in C.W.J.C. No. 12733 of 2011. The concluding part of the judgment of the Hon‟ble Apex Court is at paragraph 34, which is reproduced herein below:- “In the result, the appeals are dismissed. The appellants shall reinstate the private respondents within 15 days of the production of copy of this judgment before respondent No.3 and give them all consequential benefits like pay, allowances, etc. within next one month. However, it is made clear that this judgment shall not preclude the competent authority from taking fresh decision in the matter of confirmation of the private respondents after giving them effective opportunity of hearing against the allegation of use of unfair means in the test held on 27.2.2011.” 8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners have submitted in one voice that case of each of the petitioners is squarely covered by the judgment dated 3.12.2012 of the Hon‟ble Apex Court, referred to above.. They contend that this batch of writ petitions may be disposed of exactly in the terms of the judgment of the Hon‟ble Apex Court. 9.. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Bank and its functionaries, though has opposed the prayer made in the writ petitions, but has finally conceded that the 8 Patna High Court CWJC No.12733 of 2011 (6) dt.01-02-2013 8 / 9 facts involved in the aforesaid Civil Appeals decided by the Hon‟ble Apex Court and the facts involved in this batch of writ petitions are similar and identical. He also submits that if this batch of writ petitions is disposed of in terms of Paragraph 34 of the judgment of the Hon‟ble Apex Court, reproduced above, then the respondent Bank will have no objection, since by the aforesaid judgment right has been reserved in favour of the respondent Bank for taking fresh decision in the matter of confirmation with respect to the concerned employee of the respondent Bank. 10. After having heard the parties, and on consideration of materials available on the record, this Court is of the opinion that the issues of facts and issues of law involved in the present batch of writ petitions and that of Civil Appeal Nos. 7841-7842 of 2012 are/were exactly same and identical. Therefore, this batch of writ petitions is allowed exactly in same terms of the judgment dated 3rd December, 2012 passed in Civil Appeal Nos. 7841-7842 of 2012 by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court. 11. In the result, the impugned orders dated 11.6.2011 issued by the respondent General Manager separately to each of the petitioners are hereby set aside. All the petitioners are directed to be reinstated by the respondent Bank within one month from today and they shall be entitled to receive all consequential 9 Patna High Court CWJC No.12733 of 2011 (6) dt.01-02-2013 9 / 9 benefits like pay, allowances, etc. within next one month. However, it is clarified that this order shall not preclude the competent authority of the respondent Bank from taking fresh decision in the matter of confirmation of the petitioners of each case, after giving them effective opportunity of hearing against the allegation of using of unfair means in the test held on 27.2.2011. 12. The parties are left to bear their own costs. Kanth/- (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)