LIVE Online Course on NDPS by Riva Pocha and Adv. Taraq Sayed. Starting from 24th May. Register Now!!
LAW Courses

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Aman Sah Aman (sah)     04 July 2014

Illegal termination from state bank of india

I joined State Bank of India as management executive on 05/04/2010. My probation was for 1 year and confirmation on 05/04/2011, subject to satisfactory completion of training and passing confirmation exam to be held on 06/03/2011 with a score above 50%. As per letter dated 05/04/2011, from General Manager, State Bank of India, my probation was extended by 3 months upto 05/07/2011 under Rule 16(2) of SBIOSR for the reasons mentioned in the said rule.The Rule 16(2) of SBIOSR reads as- If, in the opinion of the competent authority, an officer has not satisfactorily completed either or both the trainings referred to in sub-rule (1) or if the officer has not passed the test referred to therein or an officer’s service is not satisfactory, the officer’s probation may be extended by a further period not exceeding one year.

As per letter dated 12/04/2011, from General Manager, State Bank of India, I was discharged from service, pursuant to the provisions of Rule 16(3) of SBIOSR. The Rule 16(3) of SBIOSR reads as- Where during the period of probation, including the period of extension, if any, the competent authority is of the opinion that the officer is not fit for confirmation:-in the case of a direct appointee, his services may be terminated by one month’s notice or payment of one month’s emoluments in lieu thereof.

I filed Case in High court. Judgement was in my favour. Then Bank appealed to Hon'ble Supreme court. The reason for termination was then revealed. It was because of a report from IBPS, which stated-" use of unfair means is suspected".

The verdict again was in my favour. The judgement was-

"“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”.


I was reinstated in the Bank's service. After 1 year, bank started Disciplinary proceedings against me and served chargesheet with allegation that use of unfair means is suspected.

During the proceedings, no substantial evidence was produced. despite that the Inquiring authority proved the charges based on suspicions. The bank again terminated me imposing penalty of dismissal.

In the similar allegations, 12 other employees from other circles have been confirmed.

Sir, this is highly prejudiced approach of bank and they have sat over the judgment of Apex court.

Please advise me what are the legal recources for me and whether SBI is justified in doing so?



Learning

 13 Replies

Sudhir Kumar, Advocate (Advocate)     04 July 2014

this is a disciplinary case and no advise can be useful to you after reading four senteces in whch disciplinary action is stated (not discussed).  Anyone having sympathy with you should not attempt an answer.  Please state details

Aman Sah Aman (sah)     04 July 2014

Sir, 

Can management prove any charge based on suspicion?

 

1.    The Bank has no cogent evidence i.e the invigilator’s report or the footage of any C.C.T.V of the examination hall.

The prosecution did not provide any substantial evidence during the proceddings.

Aman Sah Aman (sah)     04 July 2014

Sir,

The HIgh court and supreme court directed Bank to check our descriptttive papers. But bank did not do so.

The ibps report was only for objective questions.

The report itself was "suspected"

Sudhir Kumar, Advocate (Advocate)     05 July 2014

even aftr reading the rcent two posts I still repeat

 

this is a disciplinary case and no advise can be useful to you after reading four sentences in which disciplinary action is stated (not discussed).  Anyone having sympathy with you should not attempt an answer.  Please state details

Kumar Doab (FIN)     05 July 2014

 

The verdict of Supreme court of India has mention of inquiry for ‘Unfair Means’.

The bank has apparently terminated on suspicion (as posted by you……………..Suspicion) of ‘Unfair means’.

Many of the employees (might be the other employees mentioned by you) of SBI have posted similar queries at LCI……………

 

It is felt that in the HC, SC it has not been brought clearly the charge is not proved and Bank took action on suspicion and it is not sustainable.

 

If it has been brought out/established that the charge is not proved then the same judgment could have been quoted in SC and in inquiry proceedings……

 

The bank is adamant to implement its notions and prophesies…………….

 

and you are again burdened with another litigation………….

 

Apparently it suffers from illusion that court should not sit over executive decision…………………..It is vaguely remembered that this was the point of view of the bank too presented to court…………………………..

 

Time and again courts of law has decided that executive decision is not above rule of law………………………….still the officials want to run the offices as their person fiefdoms.

 

Did you avail the services of an experienced ‘Defense Representative’ in inquiry?

 

By limited understanding of the matter I feel that you and all other employees have merits…………………………..rather your case if full of merits.

 

 

However your lawyer that is well versed with process, nuances of Inquiry and that has seen all docs and has counseled you can opine the best.

 

Prefer discussions in person................ 

1 Like

Aman Sah Aman (sah)     05 July 2014

Kumar Doab Sir,

I quote some extracts from the Judgement of High court:

1- that the use of unfair means during the course of confirmation examination was not substantiated by any material, and there being no assessment, otherwise, relating to the suitability of the petitioner for confirmation, the decision to dispense with the services of the petitioner was arbitrary.

2- Since there was no direct evidence of use of unfair means by the petitioner except for the report of IBPS, which itself was based on suspicion, and there being no opportunity of hearing to the petitioner
to prove his innocence, the order of termination being punitive stood vitiated.

3- in a case of suspicion of use of unfair means the answers to the descripttive questions ought to have been evaluated, which was not done in the instant case. Thus, the action of the respondent bank
in terminating the services of the petitioner, by following only half of the procedure adopted by it to ascertain use of unfair means, was arbitrary.

4- the petitioners was guilty of use of unfair means is not based on any direct evidence, but only on a methodology based on probability by comparison of answers to objective questions. From the own methodology adopted by the respondent bank, in case of suspected use of unfair means, which was inferred from comparison of objective type answers, it was incumbent upon it to scrutinize the case of the petitioner on the basis of her performance in the descripttive paper.

Aman Sah Aman (sah)     05 July 2014

The theory of IBPS regarding detection of use of unfair means had been discussed in High  courts and supreme courts. 

State bank after reinstating me, served me charge sheet with allegation-"use of unfair means is suspected", based on the report from IBPS. this was the single charge and sole document produced during proceedings. 

the presenting officer did not provide any evidence to substantiate the charges. 

INQUIRING AUTHORITY DID NOT  SUCCEED IN PROVING THE ALLEGATION BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT

 

When no evidence is adduced by management on a particular fact alleged against the employee, that fact will be treated as "not proved"

 

“It is true, mere suspicion of guilt could neither be made the basis of an offense nor a delinquent could be punished on such suspicion only or such suspicion can alone be made the basis of departmental proceedings. Since suspicion is not proof, so on suspicion only, nobody could be found or held to be guilty of an alleged offense.

But the inquiring authority proved the charges and disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of dismissal.

 

Kumar Doab (FIN)     06 July 2014

It is vaguely remembered in threads initiated by other employees too same extract was posted.

If there was no evidence then how could inquiry officer prove the charge?

 

Now you have to proceed against the penalty imposed by Disciplinary Authority.

Approach your lawyer with all docs on record.

AS advised by Mr. Sudhir Kumar arrange all docs on record properly and seek consultation from an expert well versed with such matters.

If you wish you can approach Mr. Sudhir Kumar.

Sudhir Kumar, Advocate (Advocate)     06 July 2014

even aftr reading the rcent two posts I still repeat

 

this is a disciplinary case and no advise can be useful to you after reading four sentences in which disciplinary action is stated (not discussed).  Anyone having sympathy with you should not attempt an answer.  Please state details

malipeddi jaggarao (retired banker)     10 July 2014

Unless all the papers are seen very closely any advice will be of no use at this stage.

Where do you reside?

I suppose your advocate who took up your case at HC/SC can be of more help.

However, if you are willing to share all the papers for personal advice, you can do so and send the papers to my address by courier.

Fighting with these banks is not so easy.  It is not their money they on litigation and once they determine to terminate the employee, in spite of any number of judgements, they will pursue their aim. 

Kumar Doab (FIN)     27 July 2014

Expert  Mr. Malipeddi Jaggarao has offered to help the querist.

He may contact and avail the opportunity.

kamalakar   24 July 2015

Sir My Name is Kamalakar.G.I have been appointed as a clerk in state bank of india in 2009 in direct recruitment.after 6 months prohbition period i was confirmed as permenent employee. I and Branch manager was very close and in 2011 Januvary i was transferred to another branch. But my branch manager put aside the orders for 3 months.but from the pressure from union i was  transefered.before my transfer i and branch manager is having some disturbances.after transfer he allged that i have put forgery sgnatures and drawn amount from two customers account and used for my personal. an enquiry was conducted for this and the customers did not turn up for the enquiry.The enquiry officer has written in report that the allegations are not proved (forgery signatures) and partially proved (updatin pass book manually) and reported that i have not done any thing.But the assistent general manager of that region changed the reports as proved by the enquiry officer.Iam having the two reports in my hand later the police sent the signature to fsl hyderabad in which the fsl officer reported it is not possible to give any opinion on the signature basing on present standards.but presently i was dismissed from the service and the same was confirmed by the DGM of that region eventhough i preyed for justice.in this connection. i was delayed by 3 months as iam not financially fit.can i get justice in the hicourt or not

Sudhir Kumar, Advocate (Advocate)     25 July 2015

Originally posted by : kamalakar
Sir My Name is Kamalakar.G.I have been appointed as a clerk in state bank of india in 2009 in direct recruitment.after 6 months prohbition period i was confirmed as permenent employee. I and Branch manager was very close and in 2011 Januvary i was transferred to another branch. But my branch manager put aside the orders for 3 months.but from the pressure from union i was  transefered.before my transfer i and branch manager is having some disturbances.after transfer he allged that i have put forgery sgnatures and drawn amount from two customers account and used for my personal. an enquiry was conducted for this and the customers did not turn up for the enquiry.The enquiry officer has written in report that the allegations are not proved (forgery signatures) and partially proved (updatin pass book manually) and reported that i have not done any thing.But the assistent general manager of that region changed the reports as proved by the enquiry officer.Iam having the two reports in my hand later the police sent the signature to fsl hyderabad in which the fsl officer reported it is not possible to give any opinion on the signature basing on present standards.but presently i was dismissed from the service and the same was confirmed by the DGM of that region eventhough i preyed for justice.in this connection. i was delayed by 3 months as iam not financially fit.can i get justice in the hicourt or not

you are already advised at https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/forum/Illegal-dismissal-124434.asp#.VbLwXrX02aQ


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  


Related Threads


Loading
Start a New Discussion Unreplied Threads



Popular Discussion


view more »




Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query