- (1.) PETITIONER D. C. Aggarwal, Deputy General Manager, State Bank of India, has sought quashing of the order dated 9. 9. 1993 vide which he is denied extension in service beyond 58 years of age and his dismissal of the appeal vide order dated 27. 9. 1993 with a further prayer that the operation of these orders be stayed and the petitioner be allowed to continue to discharge his duties upto attaining the age of 60 years.
(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, he joined the service of respondent No. 1 as probationery officer in the year 1961 and by dint of hard work, devotion to duty and dedicated service rose to the level of Top Executive Grade VI as far back as 27. 8. 1980 and was given charge as Deputy General Manager of the zone comprising of Bank Branches of Haryana State and Union Territory of Chandigarh. The petitioner has further averred that he had earned several letters of appreciation from his superiors during these years. It is only in the year 1981 that an enquiry was ordered by the Bank's Vigilance Department, Central Office, Bombay. However, in the enquiry the petitioner was exonerated. Despite this, the Managing Director of the respondent Bank being the disciplinary authority disagreed with report of the enquiry and so ordered punishment of the petitioner imposing reduction in III Grade. This order was assailed by the petitioner before this Court and the same was set aside vide judgment dated 9. 4. 1991 in CWP No. 15874 of 1989. L. P. A. filed by the respondent-Bank was dismissed in limine on 15. 5. 1991. The petitioner was thus entitled to be placed in Scale VIII i. e. at the level of Chief General Manager. The petitioner made numerous representations to the respondent-Bank seeking promotion to the Top Executive Grade VIII, but did not receive any satisfactory reply. Consequently, a contempt petition was filed and pursuance to the notice issued by the Court Sarv Sh. V. Mahadavan and P. V. Subba Rao, Managing Director, put in appearance and filed affidavit on behalf of the respondents. This Court came to the conclusion that prima facie contempt has been made out against the respondents and, therefore, rule nisi was issued against both the Managing Directors-respondents in the petition. This order was impugned by the Bank by filing S. L. P. before the Supreme Court of India wherein interim directions were given by the Court that petitioner be given a suitable posting at Chandigarh, if available. It further directed the respondent-Bank to complete the departmental proceedings within the stipulated period. Finally, the apex Court vide judgment dated 17. 8. 1993 disposed of the matter with the direction that the case of the petitioner for promotion will be considered on its merit. Since. the Bank agreed to drop the departmental proceedings, contempt proceedings pending before the High Court were also ordered to be dropped.
(3.) IT is in pursuance to the direction of the apex Court that the case for extension of petitioner's service as per Paragraph 19 (1) of the State Bank of India Officers (Determination of Terms and Conditions of Service) (for short 'the Paragraph') was examined by the view Committee which is being impugned on the ground (1) that no reason has been given for non grant of extension to the petitioner. This way there has been no applicability of mind by the Review Committee; (ii) that the petitioner's service record has been excellent outstanding. Nothing adverse has been communicated to the petitioner and thus he was entitled for an extension upto 60 years of age; (iii) Though service beyond 58 years of age is termed as an extension but in actual fact officers recruited before 19. 7. 1969 continued in service upto 60 years of age and exception is seldom; (iv) the conduct of the bank is not bona fide as on one hand departmental proceedings have been dropped and was called for promotion whereas, on the other hand, this right to claim extension in service has been denied, (v) Even the chairman as an appellate authority has not examined the merit of the petitioner with an open mind and the personal hearing granted to the petitioner was merely an eye wash.;