Orissa High Court
Bipra Charan Kar vs Chief General Manager, State Bank Of ... on 24 January, 2003
Equivalent citations: (2003)IILLJ928ORI
Author: A.K. Patnaik
Bench: A.K. Patnaik, M. Papanna
JUDGMENT A.K. Patnaik, J.
1. The petitioner initially joined the service of the State Bank of India on February 16, 1971 as a Clerk-cum-typist. He was promoted to the Officer Cadre on May 1, 1981. Rule 19(1) of the State Bank of India Officers' Service Rules, 1992, as amended, provided that an officer shall retire from the service of the Bank on completion of thirty years of service. But the proviso empowered the competent authority to extend the service of such an officer who has completed thirty years of service should such extension be deemed desirable in the interest of the Bank. After the petitioner completed thirty years of service, he was intimated on November 1, 2001 that the competent authority had decided not to grant him extension in service beyond November 30, 2001. The petitioner filed an appeal against the said decision not to grant him extension in service beyond November 20, 2001 before the Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, Bhubaneswar. On November 27, 2001 the petitioner was informed that extension of service was granted only for six months with effect from December 1, 2001 and during this extended period, his performance, work, conduct and behaviour will be keenly watched by the Bank and an appropriate view will be taken basing on his performance during the period. Thereafter, the petitioner was served with the notice dated April 22, 2002 in Armexure-11 to the writ petition informing him that the competent authority has decided not to grant him extension in service in the Bank beyond May 31, 2002. The petitioner addressed an appeal against the said decision not to extend his service beyond May 31, 2002 to the Chief General Manager and Appellate Authority, State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Bhubaneswar in his letter dated May 1, 2002 in Annexure- 12 to the writ petition. The petitioner was served with the Annual Appraisal Report dated May 20, 2002 annexed to the writ petition as Annexure-14 for the year 2002 in which his over-all performance has been rated as poor. The petitioner was also intimated by a communication dated May 20, 2002 in Annexure-17 to the writ petition that his performance is rated as above average which is far from the desired level and that he will retire from Bank service as at the close of business on May 31, 2002. Aggrieved by the said orders in Annexures-17 and 14 to the writ petition, the petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the said orders.
2. On May 30, 2002 this Court while issuing notice to the opposite parties also passed interim orders in Misc. Case No. 6064 of 2002 that in the meanwhile, the order of retirement of the petitioner shall remain stayed. Pursuant to the said notice, the opposite parties have appeared and filed case No. 7907 of 2002 for vacating the interim order of stay passed by the Court on May 30, 2002. The writ petition as well as the Misc. Cases were heard together on September 27, 2002, October 4, 2002, November 1, 2002 and November 6, 2002.
3. At the hearing, Mr. Pitambar Acharya, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the service of the petitioner was extended by six months with effect from December 1, 2001 by order dated November 27, 2001 and this period of six months was to expire on May 31, 2002. It has been clarified in paragraph 9.3 of the circular of the Bank dated December 12, 1995 that while considering the grant of extension of service at the second stage, the adverse remarks/features, if any, for the period from the date of the last extension in service to the date of recommending the next extension need only be taken into consideration. Mr. Acharya submitted that since the petitioner's services were extended with effect from December 1, 2001 for a period of six months, the adverse remarks/features in the service records of the petitioner for the period prior to December 1, 2001, cannot be taken into consideration by the authorities. Yet, in this case, the authorities have taken into consideration the adverse remarks in the service records of the petitioner for the period prior to December 1, 2001. Mr. Acharya next submitted that paragraph-9.2.d. of the said circular dated December 12, 1995 of the State Bank of India further provides that where it is felt that extension of service to an officer on the basis of his performance or ratings in the Annual Confidential Reports may not be possible, this should be brought to his notice in due time and he may be counselled/advised to improve his performance and the record of advice so rendered to the officer should be placed in the officer's service file under advice to him. But in the present case, the said paragraph-9.2.d. of the circular of the State Bank of India has not been complied with. Mr. Acharya further submitted that when the petitioner was promoted from the Clerical Grade to the Officers Grade, his rating was average and at present, his rating is above average. According to Mr. Acharya, if the Bank could promote the petitioner from the clerical Grade to the Officers Grade on the basis of his average performance, the Bank could not retire him compulsorily from service when his performance is above average. In support of his contention, Mr. Acharya cited the decision of the Supreme Court in Baikunthanath Das and Anr. v. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada AIR 1992 SC 1020 : 1992 (2) SCC 299 : 1992-I-LLJ-784 in which the Supreme Court laid down the principles relating to judicial review of an order of compulsory retirement by the High Court. He pointed out that in the said decision in the case of Baikunthanath Das (supra) the Supreme Court held that an order of compulsory retirement can be interfered by the High Court if it is passed mala fide or if it is based on no evidence or it is arbitrary. He argued that in the present case, the impugned order retiring the petitioner with effect from May 31, 2002 is vitiated by mala fide, based on no evidence and is arbitrary and can be interfered with by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Mr. Acharya also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Baldev Raj Chadha v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 70 : 1980 (4) SCC 321 : 1980-11-LLJ-459 and in particular, paragraph-B thereof for the proposition that premature retirement can be made only in the public interest and the Court can examine as to whether the order of pre-mature retirement has actually been passed in the public interest. Mr. Acharya also referred to paragraph- 15 of the said decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Baldev Raj Chadha v. Union of India and Ors. (supra) wherein the Court has gone into the details of the career of the appellant in that case and has ultimately quashed the order of compulsory retirement. Finally, Mr. Acharya submitted that the petitioner had submitted an application before the authorities to go on voluntary retirement under the State Bank of India Voluntary Retirement Scheme but the same has been rejected by communication dated May 29, 2001 of the Chief Manager, State Bank of India in Annexure-7 to the writ petition. He submitted that the petitioner is willing to go on voluntary retirement under the said Voluntary Retirement Scheme of the State Bank of India and appropriate orders be passed by the Court accordingly.
4. Mr. P.V. Ramdas, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties, on the other hand, referred to the averments in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite parties and submitted that an completion of thirty years of service petitioner's case for extension of service was considered by the review committee comprising of two Deputy General Managers. But the review committee was of the view that both work and conduct of the petitioner were highly unsatisfactory on a continuing basis with no improvement in sight, notwithstanding periodical counselling and warning and his continuance in service will be detrimental to Bank's interest and image. Following the said advice of the review committee, the General Manager by his order dated November 30, 2001. But the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Chief General Manager who decided to grant short extension of six months to the petitioner and further observed that deficiencies must be pointed out to him and mention should be made to him that the Bank will watch his performance for six months. At that time the petitioner was working in Berhampur Main Branch and he was relieved on November 29, 2001 and posted at Sundargarh Branch and this was done to allow him to work in a different environment and working atmosphere to improve his performance and prove his ability. But there was no change in him and he repeated his earlier attitude. A review committee was constituted for the second time to assess the petitioner's performance and usefulness for continuance in service and the review committee came to the conclusion that the continuance of the petitioner in service will neither serve the Bank's interest nor enhance Bank's image and recommended that the petitioner's service should not be extended beyond May 31, 2002. Accordingly, the General Manager intimated the petitioner that his service will not be extended beyond May 31, 2002. The petitioner, however, preferred an appeal to the appellate authority then deputed one Senior Official of the rank of Deputy General Manager to enquire into the matter and the said Deputy General Manager submitted a report in Annexure-H to the counter affidavit and the appellate authority sought the concurrence of the Corporate Office not to grant further extension and in the meanwhile, extended the service of the petitioner upto August 31, 2002. The Corporate Office at Mumbai thereafter concurred with the view of the appellate authority but the services of the petitioner could not be terminated on account of the interim order passed by this Court on May 30, 2002. Mr. Ramdas submitted that considering the aforesaid facts, the order not extending the service of the petitioner cannot be held to be vitiated by mala fide or without any evidence or arbitrary calling for interference from this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Mr. Ramdas relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, Bhubaneswar v. Suresh Chandra Behra, AIR 1995 SC 1745 : 1995-II-LLJ-852 in which the Supreme Court refused to interfere with the order of retirement passed by the competent authority. State Bank of India, on the basis of the opinion of the review committee after discussing the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Baldev Raj Chadha v. Union of India and Ors. and Baikunthanath Das v. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada (supra). Regarding the prayer of the petitioner to allow him to go on voluntary retirement under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme of the State Bank of India, he submitted that as per the Voluntary Retirement Scheme of the State Bank of India, an officer of the State Bank of India who has attained the age of 55 years as on December 31, 2000 can only be allowed the benefits of the Voluntary Retirement Scheme. But the petitioner has not attained the age of 55 years as on December 31, 2000.
5. Rule 10(1) and the first proviso thereto of the State Bank of India Officers' Service Rules, 1992, as amended and annexed to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite parties and paragraphs 9.2 and 9.3 including the clarifications under the said paragraphs in the circular of the Bank dated December 12, 1995 as annexed to the rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner as Annexure-18 are extracted hereinbelow:
"19(1) An officer shall retire from the service of the Bank on attaining the age of sixty years or upon the completion of thirty years' service or thirty years' pensionable service, if he is a member of the Pension Fund, whichever occurs first.
Provided that the competent authority may, for reason to be recorded in writing, extend the period of service of an officer who has completed thirty years' service or thirty year's pensionable service, as the case may be, should such extension be deemed desirable in the interest of the Bank.
xx xx xx"
"9.2, Criteria for grant of extension in service or otherwise: ',..
(a) An officer who performs well, is efficient, whose integrity is beyond doubt and who possesses good health may ordinarily be considered suitable for grant of extension in service.
(b) An overall assessment of the officer's utility to the Bank should be made while deciding whether the extension in service should be granted or denied.
(c) Isolated/stray instances of deficiencies in performance, ratings in the Annual Confidential Reports etc., may not be the sole reason to deny extension in service.
(d) However, where it is felt that extension in service to an officer on the basis of his performance or ratings in the Annual Confidential Reports etc. may not be possible, this should be brought to his/her notice in due time and he/she may be counselled/advised to improve his/her performance: a record of the advice so rendered to the officer should be placed in the officer's service file, under advice to him/her."
"9.3. Period for which Extension of Service should be granted.
(a) The extension should normally be granted for the full term viz., from 55 years upto 58 years, from 58 years to 60 years as the case may be. However, short extension can be considered where disciplinary proceedings and/or prosecution are pending or are contemplated which means that investigations have revealed a prima facie case and the Disciplinary Authority/ Competent Authority has passed orders for initiation of disciplinary proceedings/ sanction or prosecution. In this connection, as extension in service is always granted subject to officers continued good health and rendering useful service to the Bank, in the case there is a deterioration in an official's health or work and conduct, desirability of retiring such officers may be examined by the Revision Committee.
Clarification
i) In regard to consideration for granting extension of service at the second stage, whether the adverse remarks/features if any, appearing in the service records for the entire period of service of the concerned officer have to be taken note of, it is clarified that the adverse remarks/features, if any, for the relevant period, i.e., the period from the date of the last extension in service to the date of recommending the next extensions need only be taken into consideration.
ii) Once the extension in service is granted by Competent Authority, the review/revocation thereof (before expiry of the term for which extension has been granted) may be done after obtaining prior approval from Central Office".
A plain reading of the aforesaid Rule 19(1) of the State Bank of India Officers' Service Rules, 1992 would show that an officer of the Bank is to retire from the service of the Bank on completion of thirty years of service, but under the first proviso to the said Rule 19(1), the competent authority may for reason to be recorded in writing, extend the period of service of an officer who has completed thirty years of service, should such extension be deemed desirable in the interest of the Bank. Paragraph-9.2 and paragraph-9.3 of the circular dated December 12, 1995 of the Bank extracted above lay down the criteria for grant of extension in service. Para 9.2 provides that an officer who performs well, is efficient, whose integrity is beyond doubt and who possesses good health may ordinarily be considered suitable for grant of extension in service. It further provides that an overall assessment of the officer's utility to the Bank will be made while deciding that extension in service should be granted or denied and isolated/stray instances of deficiencies in performance, ratings in the Annual Confidential Reports etc,, may not be the sole reason to deny extension in service. It is further mentioned therein that where it is felt that extension in service to an officer on the basis of his performance or ratings in the Annual Confidential Reports etc., may not be possible, this should be brought to his notice in due time and he may be counselled/ advised to improve his performance and a record of the advice so rendered to the officer should be placed in the officer's service file under advice to him. Paragraph-9.3 of the circular extracted above further states that extension should normally be granted for a full time, but in some cases, while disciplinary proceedings or prosecutions are pending or are contemplated, a short extension can be considered. It further states that extension in service is always granted subject to officers continued good health and rendering useful service to the Bank. In case there is a deterioration in an official's health or work and conduct desirability of retiring such officer may be examined by the Review Committee. The clarification under paragraph-9.3 states that in regard to consideration for grant of extension of service at the second stage, the adverse remarks/features appearing in the service records for the entire period of service of the concerned officer may not be taken note of and only the adverse remarks/features, if any, for the period from the last extension in service to the date of recommending the next extension need only be taken into consideration.
6. The questions for decision in this case are as to whether the aforesaid provisions in the first proviso to Rule 19(1) of the State Bank of India Officers' Service Rules, 1992 and in paragraphs-9.2 and 9.3 of the circular dated December 12, 1995 of the Bank have been followed in the case of the petitioner and whether the impugned decisions of the Competent Authority and the Appellate Authority not to extend the services of the petitioner beyond May 31, 2002 were vitiated by mala fide, based on no evidence or arbitrary. The petitioner was posted as Assistant Manager (Berhampur) Ganjam during the years 1998 to 2001 and from the chart in Annexure-D to the counter affidavit, it appears that for the year 1998, the Reporting Authority has made remarks that the petitioner is not able to concentrate on work on his desk and he was suspicious of the environment at the Branch and he has invited many problems for himself and his inter-personal relationship needs strengthening and the Reviewing Authority has not made any comment. For the year 1999, the Reporting Authority has commented that the petitioner is a self-centred officer who is more conscious of his right than duties and he avoids responsibilities and hesitates to take decisions in matters even falling within his power. The Reviewing Authority has not differed from the said remarks of the Reporting Authority. For the year 2000, the Reporting Authority has commented that the petitioner is an officer who never takes on responsibility and avoids to work with some plea or the other. He does not maintain good relation with public, staff or customers, with his negative attitude he harasses the customers and damages the image of the Bank and he does not carry out reasonable order/ instructions of the superiors. The Reviewing Authority has not differed from the said remarks made by the Reporting Authority. Considering the aforesaid adverse remarks/features in the service records of the petitioner, the Controlling Authority did not recommend for extension of service of the petitioner. The Deputy General Manager, Berhampur agreed with the views of the Controlling Authority. The case of the petitioner was referred to the Review Committee and the Review Committee comprising of two Deputy General Managers were of the opinion that the continuance of the petitioner in service will be detrimental to the Bank's interest and image. The aforesaid recommendation of the Review Committee was accepted by the Competent Authority on October 30, 2001. On October 31, 2001, the petitioner was informed that the Competent Authority has decided not to grant him extension in service beyond November 30, 2001. The petitioner, however, filed an appeal dated November 12, 2001 in Annexure-9 to the writ petition before the Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, Bhubaneswar and the said Appellate Authority granted extension of six months only to the petitioner with effect from December 1, 2001 and also decided to transfer him to Sambalpur module. The aforesaid decision of the Appellate Authority was intimated to the petitioner by letter dated November 27, 2001 in Annexure-19 annexed to the rejoinder affidavit and it was mentioned therein that the Bank will watch the performance of the petitioner and take an appropriate view, based on the seriousness and effectiveness with which the petitioner utilised the opportunity to bring about improvement in his work and conduct. In the said letter dated November 27, 2001 the deficiencies and short comings of the petitioner were also mentioned. The petitioner was then transferred to Sambalpur module and posted at Sundargarh Branch of the State Bank of India. In the monthly report on the petitioner for the month of January, 2002 the Chief Manager, Sundargarh Branch, mentioned that the petitioner's dealing was not customer friendly and he was highly talkative and argumentative. There were complaints from the customers, both written and verbal, about his behaviour and poor service and there were complaints from the staff members regarding his behaviour and dealings with the customers. The petitioner was informed by letter dated March 14, 2002 in Annexure- 10 to the writ petition by the Assistant General Manager about the aforesaid deficiencies in his performance for the months of December 2001 and January, 2002 at Sundargarh Branch. By the said letter dated March 14, 2002 the petitioner was also asked to improve his attitude towards the customers. In the monthly report on the petitioner for the month of February, 2002, the Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Sundargarh Branch mentioned that the petitioner was always fault-finding and was not at all customer-friendly and very casual towards the customers and that he was counselled by the A.G.M. on February 9, 2002 to behave properly to the Customers. In the monthly report of March, 2002, similarly, the Chief Manager, Sundargarh Branch of the State Bank of India mentioned, that the petitioner was highly argumentative and always fault-finding and bears unreasonable anger against the Bank and becomes violent on pointing out deficiencies and lacks interest in Bank's work. Thereafter in April, 2002 a review was held for the purpose of finding out as to whether the petitioner's service should be further extended or not and the review committee comprising of two Deputy General Managers gave their opinion on April 21, 2002 that having regard to the work and conduct of the petitioner in Sambalpur module his continuance in service will neither serve the Bank's interest nor enhance the Bank's image. The Competent Authority was also of the view that the official's record was dismal and his continuance in the service of the Bank apart from not being useful would have a negative impact. The petitioner was informed by letter dated April 22, 2002 that the Competent Authority had decided not to grant him extension in service in the Bank beyond May 31, 2002. The petitioner submitted an appeal to the Chief General Manger, State Bank of India, Bhubaneswar in the appeal, the petitioner requested the appellate authority to send an official to investigate his performance and work at Sundargarh Branch and the appellate authority deputed a senior Official of the rank of Deputy General Manager to enquire into the matter and the Deputy General Manger submitted his report after interaction with eight employees, officers and clerical staff. In the report, the said Deputy General Manager stated that the petitioner has an irritable style of talking. He talks loudly. He considers himself to be knowning all. His disposal is very slow and is always surrounded by ten to twelve customers. He has no customer orientation and is argumentative in behaviour and does not cooperate with any one, avoids taking decision, makes deliberate delays, passes unnecessary comments and tries to instigate the staff and his continuation at the Branch is not good. After receiving the said report dated May 15, 2002 the appellate authority sought the concurrence of the Corporate Office not to grant further extension. But in view of the short time at the disposal, the petitioner was granted three months extension, i.e. upto August 31, 2002. The Corporate Office at Mumbai has concurred with the view of the appellate authority that the services of the petitioner should not be extended any further.
7. The aforesaid narration of facts would show that the service records of the petitioner for the years 1999, 2000 and 2001 while he was posted as Assistant Manager (Berhampur) Ganjam contain various adverse entries/ features for which, the Competent Authority on the advise of the Review Committee had decided not to extend the service of the petitioner beyond November 30, 2001. But the appellate authority allowed extension for a period of six months with effect from December 1, 2001 to May 31, 2002 so as to give an opportunity to the petitioner to improve and posted him in Sambalpur module. But the petitioner instead of improving was not customer friendly and was argumentative and quarrelsome and did not maintain good relation with other members of the staff and was slow in disposal of his work and thus the Review Committee meeting in April, 2002 recommended for discontinuance of the petitioner and the said recommendation was accepted by the Competent Authority and by the appellate authority after report was submitted by the Deputy General Manager deputed by the appellate authority that the petitioner's continuance in the Branch was not good. The aforesaid discussion would show that there were adverse entries in the service records of the petitioner before he was recommended for extension in November, 2001 and even after he was recommended for extension during the period from December 2001 to April 2003 when he was posted at Sundargarh Branch of the State Bank of India. Thus, when the petitioner was finally not granted extension beyond May 31, 2002, the adverse entries in the service records of the petitioner for the period December 1, 2001 to April, 2002 have been taken into consideration. Hence, the contention of Mr. Acharya that paragraph-9.3 of the circular dated December 12, 1995 of the Bank and in particular, the clarification thereto had been ignored while deciding not to extend the service of the petitioner beyond May 31, 2002 is misconceived. The aforesaid narration of facts would further show that the petitioner had been informed all the deficiencies in service from time to time not only during the period prior to December 1, 2001 but also during the period after December 1, 2001. But the petitioner did not improve and continued with the deficiencies. Thus, the provisions of paragraph-9.2.d. of the circular dated December 12, 1995 of the Bank had also been followed. The contention of Mr. Acharya that the said provision in paragraph-9.2.d. of the circular dated December 12, 1995 had not been followed is also not correct.
8. The aforesaid discussion would further show that the decisions of the Competent Authority and the Appellate Authority not to extend the service of the petitioner beyond May 31, 2002 are based on evidence, namely, the adverse entries/features in the service records of the petitioner. Hence, the said decisions cannot be held to be mala fide or based on no evidence. Further, the said decisions cannot be held to be arbitrary as a reasonable person on the basis of the adverse entries/features in the service records of the petitioner, can take a view that the petitioner's continuance in the service is not in the Bank's interest. The contention of Mr. Acharya that the impugned decisions not to continue the service of the petitioner beyond May 31, 2002 are vitiated by mala fide, based on no evidence and are arbitrary, thus is misconceived.
9. In Baikunthanath Das and Anr. v. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada (supra) cited by Mr. Acharya, learned counsel for the petitioner, the High Court had found that there were adverse remarks against Baikunthanath Das to the effect that he was most insincere, irregular in habits and negligent and besides being a person of doubtful integrity, he had been quarrelsome with his colleagues and superior officers and had been creating problems for the administration and the High Court did not interfere with the order of compulsory retirement. The Supreme Court held that it cannot be said that the order of compulsory retirement suffers from mala fide or that it is based on no evidence or that it is arbitrary and dismissed the appeal filed by Baikunthanath Das. In the present case also we have found that the impugned order not to extend the service of the petitioner beyond May 31, 2002 are based on various adverse entries/features in the service records of the petitioner and we hold that it does not suffer from mala fides and is not based on no evidence and is not arbitrary.
10. In Baldev Raj Chadha v. Union of India (supra) cited by Mr. Acharya, learned counsel for the petitioner the Supreme Court found that the adverse entries of the petitioner for the years 1961-62 to the end of 1970 had been taken into consideration and the petitioner had been compulsorily retired on the basis of the said adverse entries whereas the petitioner in the said case had no adverse entries during the last five years immediately before the compulsory retirement, i.e. during 1971-72, 1972-73, 1973-74, 1974-1975 and 1975- 1976 till the date of his retirement from the service on August 27, 1975 and the petitioner had been allowed to cross Efficiency Bar and had been paid maximum salary in the scale. On these facts, the Supreme Court held that the order of compulsory retirement fails because vital material, relevant to the decision has been ignored and obsolete material, less relevant to the decision has influenced the decision. In the present case, on the other hand, the adverse entries/ features of the service records of the petitioner during the years and months just prior to the impugned orders not to extend the service of the petitioner have been taken into consideration and these adverse entries are obviously relevant entries and not entries which were obsolete and not relevant to the decision. The decision of the Supreme Court in Baldev Raj Chadha's case (supra), therefore, is distinguishable from the facts of the present case.
11. In Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, Bhubaneswar v. Suresh Chandra Behra (supra) cited by Mr. P.V. Ramdas, learned counsel for the opposite parties, the Supreme Court found that the Review Committee recorded that the overall performance of the officer during the past five years had been average. The officer had been censured for procedural irregularities as a Head Cashier. His performance as a Branch Manager had not been satisfactory. His initiative had also been only average for the last five years. He should be compulsorily retired after giving him requisite notice. The report was duly approved by the Executive Committee and thereafter the officer was served with an order retiring him from service. The High Court quashed the order of retirement. The Supreme Court held that looking to the findings arrived at by the Review Committee after a detailed examination of the service record of the officer, the order of compulsory retirement cannot be faulted on any ground and that the High Court cannot examine for itself the service record of any employee and substitute its own judgment for the judgment of the Reviewing Committee and that the power had been properly exercised on relevant considerations in public interest and the order cannot be termed as either arbitrary or mala fide. In the present case also, we find that the power under Rule 19(1) and the first proviso thereto of the State Bank of India Officer's Service Rules, 1992 have been exercised by the Competent Authority and the Appellate Authority on relevant considerations in the interest of the Bank. The High Court cannot sit as an appellate authority and substitute its own view for that of the Competent Authority and Appellate Authority holding that the petitioner's service should be extended because his performance has been above average as has been argued by Mr. Acharya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Since the impugned order has not been passed mala fide and is not based on no evidence or is not arbitrary, the High Court cannot interfere with the same under Article 226 of the Constitution.
12. For the aforesaid reasons, we are not inclined to interfere with the decision of the authorities of the State Bank of India not to extend the service of the petitioner beyond May 31, 2002 or with the Annual Appraisal Report of the petitioner in Annexures-17 and 14 to the writ petition and we, accordingly dismiss the writ petition and vacate the interim order dated May 30, 2002. The petitioner, however will be paid his salary and allowance till today.
13. Regarding the decision of the Bank not to extend the benefits under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme of the State Bank of India to the petitioner, the said decision of the Bank has not been specifically challenged in this writ petition with appropriate grounds. We, therefore, do not express any opinion on the merits of the said decision. It is open to the petitioner to challenge the said decision in a separate writ petition if he is so advised and if such a separate writ petition is filed, the same shall be considered on its own merits. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs.
M. Papanna, J.
14. I agree.