WA No.1296 of 2023 (The General Manager, State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Rotary Junction, Poojappura, Trivandrum & The Assistant General Manager (HR), State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Rotary Junction, Poojappura, Trivandrum v. P. Vijayaraghavan)

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** # **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR** **TUESDAY, THE 20[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 1ST PHALGUNA, 1945** **WA NO.1296 OF 2023 JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 20351/2011 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 23.5.2023** **------------------** ## **- APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 :** 1 THE GENERAL MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, LOCAL HEAD OFFICE, ROTARY JUNCTION, POOJAPPURA, TRIVANDRUM, PIN – 695 024 2 THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER (HR), HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, STATE BANK OF INDIA, LOCAL HEAD OFFICE, ROTARY JUNCTION, POOJAPPURA, TRIVANDRUM, PIN – 695 024 BY ADVS. P.GOPAL GEORGE THOMAS (MEVADA)(SR.)(G-120) ## **- RESPONDENT/PETITIONER :** P.VIJAYARAGHAVAN, STATE BANK OF INDIA, RETAIL ASSETS SMALL & MEDIUM ENTERPRISES, CITY CREDIT CENTRE (RASMECCC), TRICHUR, PIN – 680 001. BY ADV R.K.MURALEEDHARAN THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 07.02.2024, THE COURT ON 20.02.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.A. No.1296 of 2023 -: 2 :- ## **ANU SIVARAMAN, J. & C. PRATHEEP KUMAR, J.** **-----------------------------------------------------------------W.A. No.1296 of 2023 --------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 20[th] day of February, 2024** ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Anu Sivaraman, J.** This appeal is preferred by the employer-bank being aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge which directed the modification of Ext.R2(a) order to be in conformity with Rule 67(f) of the State Bank of India Officers Service Rules, 1992 (hereinafter referred to 'the Rules'). 2. We have heard the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, who was the writ petitioner. 3. The facts necessary for the consideration of the issue are as follows :- The respondent/writ petitioner was working as Branch Manager of the State Bank of India at Kattappana. A major penalty proceedings were initiated and a penalty of reduction of basic pay by five stages for one year was imposed under Rule 67(f) of the Rules. Ext.P1 order also illustrated the manner in which the penalty was to be worked out. Aggrieved by the manner in which the reduction was sought to be restored, W.A. No.1296 of 2023 -: 3 :- that is; by restoring one stage in every year, the respondent filed a representation, which was rejected by Ext.P3 order dated 04.09.2002. He, thereafter, preferred representations in the grievance redressal system and sent several reminders, but no action was taken thereon. He, therefore, approached this Court with the following prayers :- - “(a) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction quashing Ext.P1 order to the extent of the manner in which penalty is ordered to be implemented under Rule 67(f) of SBI Officers Service Rules and Ext.P3 order issued by the 2[nd] respondent. And - (b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate order or direction directing the respondents to restore the basic pay as illustrated in Ext.P7 based on Ext.P6 memo along with the illustration issued by the Chief General Manager dated 13.04.2000 and declare the consequential entitlement of the petitioner. Or in the alternative - (c) Direct the respondents to consider and pass orders on Ext.P8 representation on merits submitted by the petitioner based on Ext.P6 memo and illustration by the Chief General Manager within a time frame to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court.” 4. Considering the contentions advanced on either side, the learned Single Judge held that the provisions of Rule 67(f) were misinterpreted by the disciplinary authority and that the punishment could have been imposed only strictly in accordance W.A. No.1296 of 2023 -: 4 :- with Rule 67(f). The respondents were, therefore, directed to comply with the order of this Court by strictly applying Rule 67(f) to any other orders passed against the writ petitioner after institution of the writ petition. 5. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants contends that the reasoning of the learned Single Judge was erroneous and that since the punishment imposed was reduction of pay by five stages for one year and since the punishment was cumulative in effect, the barred increments would be restored only one at a time. Reliance is placed on the judgments of the Apex Court in **Punjab State Electricity Board** v. **Raj Kumar Goel** [2015 KHC 4106] as also in **Kulwant Singh Gill** v. **State of Punjab** [1991 KHC 1065]. 6. A counter affidavit has been placed on record by the respondents stating that since the punishment of reduction of basic pay by five stages was imposed on the respondent herein with cumulative effect, he would be entitled to restoration of the five stages reduced only at the rate of one stage in a year and therefore there was no error in the manner in which the effect of the punishment was calculated. The specific contention in the W.A. No.1296 of 2023 -: 5 :- counter affidavit was that if the disciplinary authority directs that the officer would not earn increments during the period of punishment and on expiry of the period of punishment, the punishment will have the effect of postponing his future increments, then, on the expiry of the punishment period, withheld increments during the period of reduction will be released and thereafter the regular annual increments will continue. In effect, it is contended that there will be cumulative postponement of the number of stages reduced and the pay of the employee will be restored to the stage in the time scale from which it was reduced. Exts.R2(c) to R2(e) were also produced and relied on in support of the said contention. It is further stated in paragraphs 10 to 12 in the counter affidavit as follows :- “10. It is respectfully submitted that the bank has initiated another disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner while he was working as Manager (Concurrent Audit) at Kannur Branch for committing serious irregularities/lapses acting in violation of Rule 50(4), 59(v), 60(2) and 6192) of SBIOSR, 1992 and imposed punishment of removal from service on the petitioner under Rule 67(i) of SBIOSR, 1992 by order dated 30.3.2012. 11. The averments in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the reply affidavit that the penalty imposed under Rule 67(f) of SBIOSR, 1992 cannot be stretched to more than one year are not correct and are denied. The reduction of basic pay of petitioner by five stages in Ext.R2(a) order is reduction of five increments of the petitioner from W.A. No.1296 of 2023 -: 6 :- the date of Ext.R2(a) order. Ext.R2(a) order of punishment is not imposed on the petitioner for five years or extended as contended by the petitioner. 12. The averments in paragraph 5 of the reply affidavit are incorrect. The amounts towards basic pay claimed by the petitioner with effect from 1.11.2002, 1.10.2003, 1.10.2007 are incorrect. The petitioner is not entitled to stagnation increment during the period of punishment undergone by him.” 7. Considering the contentions advanced, we find that Rule 67(f) of the SBI Officers Service Rules, 1992 provides only for reduction in basic pay by five stages for a period of one year. Therefore, what is reduced is the basic pay of the incumbent by five stages from the pay that he draws as on the date of imposition of the penalty. There is no separate punishment of bar of increments inflicted on the employee. Therefore, the reduction by five stages is confined to a period of one year. After the period of punishment, the order specifically says that the five stages will be cumulatively restored. If that be so, the calculation given in the order of punishment as well as in the orders rejecting the request made by the respondent cannot be correct. The calculation relied on by the appellants would show that five stages which are reduced by the order of punishment is restored only stage by stage, over a period of five years and not W.A. No.1296 of 2023 -: 7 :- cumulatively after the period of one year which is the term for which the punishment has been imposed. 8. The judgments relied on by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants are authority on the point that where increment is barred cumulatively, the increment which the employee would have earned during the relevant period is forfeited for ever and is not restored. However, we notice that in the instant case, the punishment imposed is not barring of increments, but lowering of pay by five stages, which the order itself specifically says, will be restored cumulatively. 9. In the above view of the matter and in the light of the fact that the punishment of reduction of pay by five stages was imposed specifically only for one year, we are unable to accept the contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants that the reduced stages could have been restored only one stage at a time, that is, over the period of five years. We are in agreement with the view expressed by the learned Single Judge that the punishment being only reduction of pay by five stages for one year, the pay would have to be restored after the period of punishment was over to the stage at which it stood before the punishment was inflicted. W.A. No.1296 of 2023 -: 8 :- In the above view of the matter, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in the writ appeal. The grounds raised in the writ appeal is devoid of merits and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. **Sd/ANU SIVARAMAN** **JUDGE** **Sd/C. PRATHEEP KUMAR JUDGE** Jvt/13.2.2024