The Chief General Manager,state Bank of India & Anr. v. Shri Bijoy Kumar Mishra
In short. The case involves Bijoy Kumar Mishra, who was appointed as a Probationary Officer at the State Bank of India but faced termination due to unauthorized absence from duty. The core issue was whether Mishra could be deemed confirmed in his position after the maximum probation period expired, despite his absence. The Supreme Court overturned the Orissa High Court's decision, which had quashed the termination order, ruling that Mishra could not be deemed confirmed without an order of confirmation during his absence.
Facts
- Appointment: Bijoy Kumar Mishra was appointed as a Probationary Officer on October 24, 1980, and joined duty on December 15, 1980.
- Absence: He was unauthorizedly absent from April 2, 1981, until 1988, with the last presence noted in August 1983. His probation period, which lasted three years, expired on December 14, 1983.
- Medical Certificate: Mishra submitted a medical certificate in May 1984, claiming he was unfit for duty due to a viral infection but did not return to work afterward.
- Further Education: He enrolled in an M.Phil. course at Punjab University without permission during his absence.
- Termination: The Bank terminated his service on October 4, 1988, leading to a writ petition filed by Mishra in the Orissa High Court.
Arguments
Petitioner Arguments
- Main Argument: The petitioner (State Bank of India) argued that Mishra's unauthorized absence and failure to comply with service rules justified his termination.
- Court's Response: The court acknowledged the absence but focused on the procedural aspect of confirmation, ultimately ruling that the absence did not automatically lead to confirmation without an explicit order.
Respondent Arguments
- Main Argument: Mishra contended that he should be deemed confirmed in his position after the expiration of the probation period, as no action was taken by the competent authority to terminate or extend his probation.
- Court's Response: The court found that the absence from duty and lack of confirmation order meant he could not be considered confirmed, thus supporting the Bank's termination decision.
Precedents considered
The judgment did not cite specific precedents but relied on the interpretation of the State Bank of India Officers (Determination of Terms & Conditions of Service) Order, 1979, particularly regarding probation and confirmation.
Legal principles
- Probation and Confirmation: The court examined the provisions regarding probation and confirmation, emphasizing that confirmation requires an explicit order from the competent authority.
- Unauthorized Absence: The court highlighted that unauthorized absence from duty does not automatically lead to confirmation in service.
Decision and reasoning
Rationale
The court reasoned that the absence of an order of confirmation during Mishra's unauthorized absence meant he could not be deemed confirmed. The court emphasized the importance of following procedural rules regarding employment status and the necessity of an explicit confirmation order.
Outcome
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, overturning the High Court's decision. The termination order dated October 4, 1988, was upheld, and Mishra was not reinstated. The court did not provide specific instructions for an appeal process, as the decision was final.
Conclusion
This judgment underscores the importance of adherence to procedural rules in employment matters, particularly regarding probation and confirmation. It clarifies that unauthorized absence can impact an employee's status and that confirmation requires formal acknowledgment from the employer.
Read the full judgment on the Supreme Court website (PDF)
Find the judgments that followed or distinguished it, with the paragraph relied on in each. Two answers free on WhatsApp, no signup.