http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 11  

PETITIONER: STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS. ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: S. VIJAYA KUMAR & ORS. ETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT18/07/1990

BENCH: KASLIWAL, N.M. (J) BENCH: KASLIWAL, N.M. (J) SHARMA, L.M. (J)

CITATION:  1991 AIR   79            1990 SCR  (3) 398  1990 SCC  (4) 481        JT 1990 (3)   308  1990 SCALE  (2)110

ACT:     State  Bank  of  India Act,  1955/State  Bank  of  India (Supervising Staff) Service Rules. 1975/State Bank of  India General Regulations 1955--Sections 43, 49,  50(1)/Regulation 55(2)(a)--Order of dismissal not to be passed by an authori- ty lower than the appointing authority.

HEADNOTE:     A  common  question  of law viz., whether  an  order  of dismissal against an employee, could validly be passed by an authority  lower than the appointing authority of the  Bank, arises for determination in these three appeals, two by  the State Bank of India and the third by an employee.     Respondent,  Vijaya Kumar in Civil Appeal 3392 of  1990, was  appointed  as Probationary Officer by an order  of  the Executive  Committee of the Central Board of the State  Bank of India. He was charge sheeted for gross irregularities and corrupt practices and was dismissed from service by an order passed by the Chief General Manager of the Bank,  whereupon, he  flied  a writ petition before the  Andhra  Pradesh  High Court,  challenging  the order of dismissal  passed  against him.  A  Division  Bench of the High Court  heard  the  writ petition, alongwith writ appeal No. 141 of 1986 (involving a similar  point). The High Court allowed the  writ  petition. The  State Bank being aggrieved by the said order has  filed this appeal after obtaining special leave.     T.  Dayakar Rao, respondent in Civil Appeal No. 3393  of 1990 was appointed as a Clerk in the State Bank in  October, 1962  and  while  he was working as a Bank  Manager  he  was chargesheeted for irregularities committed by him during the period  from  1.9.1979 to 14.6.80. He  was  dismissed  under orders  of the Chief General Manager being the  disciplinary authority.  Mr. Rao flied a writ petition in the High  Court and  the High Court allowed the writ petition following  its decision in writ appeal No. 141 of 1986. Being aggrieved the State  Bank has filed the instant appeal with special  leave of the Court. Civil Appeal No. 3394 of 1990 has been filed ,by an employee A.K. 399 Soundararajan, who was appointed as Technical Officer by the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 11  

Executive Committee of the Central Board of the Bank. It was specifically mentioned in the Order of appointment that Shri Soundararajan  would be governed by the State Bank of  India (Officers  & Assistants) Service Rules.  Shri  Soundararajan was  chargesheeted and dismissed under orders passed by  the Chief General Manager- Thereupon he filed a writ petition in the  High Court challenging his order of dismissal.  Learned Single  Judge of the High Court allowed the  writ  petition. The  Bank  filed an appeal before the  Division  Bench.  The Division  Bench  in  this case took  into  consideration  an amendment  made  in  Regulation 55  by  a  resolution  dated 25.8.1988 made applicable with retrospective effect. Accord- ingly  the  Division Bench allowed the appeal filed  by  the Bank,  Aggrieved against this order. Shri Soundararajan  has flied Civil Appeal 3394 of 1990 with special leave.     The contention urged by the employees is that the  Chief General Manager, being a lower authority than the  Executive Committee,  he had no competence to pass the order  of  dis- missal  whereas  the Bank contends that  the  Chief  General Manager  had,  by  virtue of  the  amendment  of  Regulation 55(2)(a) made retrospectively, become the appointing author- ity  of  employees  in question and as such  the  orders  of dismissal passed by him against the employees long after the amendment are valid.     Allowing the appeals by the State Bank and remanding the two cases to the High Court and directing that the appeal by Soundararajan be listed for final hearing, this Court,     HELD:  The  hallmark of status is the  attachment  to  a legal  relationship  of  rights and duties  imposed  by  the public law and not by mere agreement by the parties.  Emolu- ment of the Government servant and his terms of service  are governed by statute or statutory rule which may be unilater- ally  altered by the Government without the consent  of  the employee. [411F-G]     Under Article 311(1) of the Constitution, the words used are  "by  which he was appointed"-  In  regulation  55(2)(a) there  are no such words "by which he was appointed" and  in its  place  the only right guaranteed is that  the  employee shall  not be dismissed by an authority lower than  the  ap- pointing authority. [410A]      Thus  the right guaranteed in case of the  officers  or employees  of the State Bank is that the order of  dismissal cannot he passed by an 400 authority lower than the appointing authority. [410B]      The right whatsoever conferred on the employees of  the State  Bank was on the basis of Regulation 55(2)(a) and  the Central  Board  of  the Bank was authorised  to  amend  such regulations from any date under Section 50(2)(a) of the Act. This  provision  now concludes the controversy  if  any  and clearly  provides that the appointing authority  shall  mean and include the authority who has been designated as such at the time when such order is passed. [412B; 410H]     State  of Jammu & Kashmir v. Triloki Nath Khosa &  Ors., [1974]  1  S.C.R. 771; Bishun Narain Misra v. The  State  of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., A.I.R. 1965 Vol. 52 S.C. 1567;  Roshan Lal Tandon v. Union of India & Anr. and Kunj Behari v. Union of  India & Ors., A.I.R. 1967 S.C. (Vol. 54) 1889,  referred to.

JUDGMENT:     CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal  Nos.  3392- 3394 of 1990.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 11  

   From  the  Judgment and Order dated 30.11. 1989  of  the Andhra  Pradesh  High  Court  in  W.A.  No.  269/89,   dated 30.8.1988 in W.P. No. 12041/84 and dated 26.11.1987 in  W.P. No. 194 of 1983.     P.K.   Goswamy,   Additional   Solicitor  General,  M.K. Ramamurthy,  C. Sitaramaiya, M.L. Paul, Kailash Vasdev,  Ms. M.M.  Rasaily,  M.A.  Krishnamurthy,  Mrs.  C.   Ramamurthy, T.V.S.N. Chari, Mrs. B. Sunita Rao and Ms. Majula Gupta  for the Appearing Parties. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KASLIWAL, J. Special leave granted.     All the above cases are disposed of by one single  order as  identical  questions of law are involved  in  all  these cases.  In  order to appreciate the  controversy,  facts  in brief are stated of all these cases. SLP No. 4176 of 1988:     The  respondent Vijaya Kumar was appointed as  a  Proba- tionary Officer (Gr. I Officer) by an Order of the Executive Committee of the Central Board of the State Bank of India on 7.12.71.  The  respondent was charge sheeted in  respect  of gross irregularities and corrupt ?401 practices  and was ultimately dismissed from service  by  an order dated 22.12.88 passed by the Chief General Manager  of the Bank. Shri Vijay Kumar filed a writ petition No.  194/83 before  the Andhra Pradesh High Court challenging his  order of  dismissal. A Division Bench of the High Court heard  the writ  petition alongwith writ appeal No. 141/86 and  allowed the  writ  petition but dismissed the writ appeal  by  order dated 26.11.87. The State Bank aggrieved against the  afore- said  order  of the High Court passed in writ  petition  No. 194/83 has filed this special leave petition. The High Court has  allowed the writ petition only on one ground  that  the appointing authority of Vijaya Kumar was Executive Committee of  the  Bank  and as such Chief General  Manager  being  an authority lower than the appointing authority was not compe- tent to pass an order of dismissal. SLP No. 15235 of 1988:     In this case the respondent T. Dayakar Rao was appointed as a Clerk in the State Bank of India in the month of  Octo- ber,  1962. In the month of July, 1971 he was selected as  a Trainee  Officer  and  was given  job  training  at  various branches of the Bank for two years. While he was working  as a  Bank  Manager  he was  chargesheeted  for  irregularities committed by him during the period 1.9.79 to 15.6.80. Disci- plinary proceedings were initiated on 29.7.82. On 6.3.84 the Chief  General Manager in the capacity of  disciplinary  au- thority passed an order of dismissal. T. Dayakar Rao filed a writ  petition No. 1204/84 in the High Court.  The  Division Bench of the High Court by an order dated 13th August,  1988 allowed the writ petition following the decision of Division Bench  given in writ appeal No. 141/86 dated  26.11.87.  The Bank  aggrieved  against the aforesaid order has  filed  the Special  Leave Petition under Article 136 of  the  Constitu- tion. SLP No. 2069 of 1990:     In  this  case  Shri A.K.  Soundararajan  appellant  was appointed as Technical Officer by an order dated 14.6.68  of the Executive Committee of the Central Board of the Bank. It was mentioned in the Order that Shri Soundararajan would  be governed by the State Bank of India (Officers &  Assistants) Service  Rules.  Post of Technical  Officer  was  considered equivalent  to Staff Officer Grade III under the  Rules.  He was  suspended  and given a chargesheet on 23.4.82  and  was dismissed  by  an order dated 31.3.83 passed  by  the  Chief

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 11  

General  Manager. Shri Soundararajan filed a  writ  petition No.  7108/85  in  the High Court challenging  his  order  of dismissal. Learned Single Judge of the High 402 Court  by order dated 31.10.88 allowed the writ petition  by following  the decision given by the Division Bench in  writ petition  No.  1204/84 in the case of T.  Dayakar  Rao.  The State Bank aggrieved against the order of the learned Single Judge  filed an appeal before the Division Bench. The  Divi- sion Bench in this case took into consideration an amendment made  in  Regulation 55 by a resolution dated  25.8.88  made applicable with retrospective effect. The Division Bench  by Order dated 30th November, 1989 allowed the appeal filed  by the  Bank.  Shri A.K. Soundararajan  aggrieved  against  the Order  of the High Court has filed this Special Leave  Peti- tion.     It  would be necessary to narrate the facts of  SLP  (C) No. 5139/88 (State Bank of India v. Hanumantha Rao) disposed of by an order of this Court dated 30th January, 1990.     Hanumantha  Rao  was  promoted as  Grade  I  Officer  on 1.4.1973 by the Executive Committee of the Central Board  of State Bank of India. In 1979 he was posted as the Manager of a  branch  of the Bank in Warangal District. In  respect  of certain  alleged  acts  of  misfeasance/malfeasance  he  was suspended on 17.8.81. On 4.5.82 a memo of charges was served on Hanumantha Rao by the Chief General Manager of the  Bank. The Chief General Manager of the State Bank of India,  local head  office Hyderabad dismissed Hanumantha Rao by an  order dated  7.1.84.  Hanumantha  Rao filed a  writ  petition  No. 5509/84 in the High Court. Learned Single Judge allowed  the writ  petition declaring the order of dismissal as  incompe- tent  and invalid. The Bank aggrieved against the  order  of the  Learned Single Judge filed a Letters Patent Appeal  No. 141/86  before the Division Bench. The Division Bench  heard and disposed of the writ appeal No. 141/86 and writ petition No. 194/83 by a common order. The Division Bench agreed with the conclusion of the learned Single Judge that the order of dismissal passed by the Chief General Manager is incompetent and  invalid being violative of the guarantee  contained  in the  proviso  to Regulation 55(2)(a) of the  State  Bank  of India General Regulations, 1955.     While  dealing with the cross objections filed  by  Shri Hanumantha  Rao the Bench took notice of the fact  that  the writ  petitioner had died on 24.11.87 and as such  gave  the following direction: "On account of the death of the writ-petitioner it is unnec- essary for us to go into the merits of the contentions urged by way of cross-objections. There is no question of 403 any enquiry or further enquiry hereafter. We may mention  in this connection that the learned counsel for the  petitioner (respondent in this Writ Appeal) offered to file a  petition to bring on record the legal representatives of the deceased writ-petitioner  as respondents in this Writ  Appeal  since, according  to  him, they would be entitled in any  event  to claim the monetary benefits flowing from the orders of  this Court. Now that we have agreed with the learned single Judge that the order of dismissal was incompetent and invalid,  we direct that the writ petitioner shall be treated to be under suspension  pending  enquiry till 24.11. 1987  and  all  the monetary  benefits  that he is entitled to  on  that  basis, including the arrears of suspension allowance, shall be paid over to his legal representatives. Mr. Prasad will file  the legal representatives petition within two weeks from  today. Post this Writ Appeal for orders after two weeks.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 11  

        The  Writ  Appeal, accordingly, fails and  is  dis- missed, but, in the circumstances, without costs."     The Bank aggrieved against the aforesaid order filed the SLP No. 5139/88 before this Court. Taking note of the  facts and circumstances of the case of Hanumantha Rao having  died on  24.11.87 leaving behind 14 children, this Court on  30th January,  1990  did not consider if fit  to  interfere  with impugned  order of the Division Bench. It was  further  made clear  that even though this Court was not interfering  with the  impugned order, the questions raised on behalf  of  the Bank were left open. The Bank was directed to treat Hanuman- tha  Rao in service and pay the dues, arrears of salary  and other terminal benefits in accordance with law to his  legal representatives.  With these observations, the SLP was  dis- missed.     The question which calls for consideration in all  these cases  is whether the order of dismissal could be passed  by the  Chief  General  Manager who was lower in  rank  to  the Executive  Committee  who was the  appointing  authority  in these cases.     In  order  to appreciate this controversy, it  would  be proper  to give reference of the relevant provisions of  the State  Bank of India Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred  to  as the  Act),  State Bank of India  General  Regulations,  1955 (hereinafter  referred to as the Regulations) and the  State Bank of India (Supervising Staff) Service Rules, 1975 404 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules).     Section 43 of the Act empowers the State Bank to appoint such  number of officers, Advisors and Employees as it  con- siders necessary or desirable for the efficient  performance of  its functions and to determine the terms and  conditions of their appointments and service.     Section  49  of  the Act confers power  on  the  Central Government,in  consultation  with the Reserve Bank  to  make rules  to  provide  for all matters in  which  provision  is necessary  or expedient for the purpose of giving effect  to the provisions of the Act.      Section 50(1) of the Act confers powers on the  Central Board of  Directors of the Bank to make regulations.     Sub-section  (3) of the Section 50 of the Act  empowered the  Reserve  Bank to make the first  regulations  with  the previous sanction of the Central Government.     In  exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section  (3) of Section 50 of the Act, the Reserve Bank of India with the previous  sanction of the Central Government made the  State Bank  of India General Regulations, 1955. These  regulations have been amended from time to time by the Central Board  of Directors  by  making regulations under  subsection  (1)  of Section 50 of the Act.     Regulation 55(2)(a) deals with the initial  appointments and  promotions  to various categories of employees  in  the bank. Initially the appointments of Officers used to be made only  by the Executive Committee as provided  in  Regulation 55(2)(a).  As  the bank grew larger in  branches,  the  bank thought  fit to vest the power of appointment and  promotion to various functionaries of the bank and also gave power  to delegate   their  power  of  appointment  also.   Regulation 55(2)(a)  was  thus substituted by a resolution  dated  18th August, 1971 of the Central Board. After this resolution for Officers Grade I & II,the appointing authorities were speci- fied as the Secretary and Treasurer or the Managing Director respectively  depending upon whether the  appointment/promo- tion is for service in the Circle or the Central office. The State Bank of India Officers & Assistants Rules which govern

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 11  

the service conditions of Grade I Officer whether they  were Probationary Officers or Trainee Officers and Staff Officers followed  the scheme of "appointing authority" laid down  in the  Regulations.Regulation 55(2)(a) was again amended by  a resolution of the Central 405 Board on 11th July, 1972. By this amendment there was only a terminological  regrouping of the earlier regulation  rather than any qualitative change. The State Bank Laws (Amendment) Act,  1973  introduced  various amendments and  one  of  the amendments  was relating to change of designation of  Secre- tary  and  Treasurer  as Chief General  Manager.  Hence  the Central  Board  vide its resolution dated  29.3.74  for  the words  "Secretary  & Treasurer" substituted  "Chief  General Manager." The service conditions of all Officers came to  be brought  under a single set of service rules viz. the  State Bank  of India (Supervising Staff) Service Rules which  came into force on 1.7.75. It would be important to mention  that Regulation  55(2)(a) at all relevant period for our  purpose recognized  the  right of the officers or employees  of  the Bank under the following clause "such officers or  employees shall not be dismissed from service of the State Bank by  an authority  lower than the appointing authority." Clause  (f) of  Rule  3 of the State Bank of India  (Supervising  Staff) Service  Rules which is relevant for our purposes  reads  as under: (f) "Appointing Authority" means-- (i)  in  the case of Officers Grade II and Grade  I  and  of other  employees  to whom the salary  scales  applicable  to Officers Grade II and Grade I generally apply with or  with- out modification, the Chief General Manager concerned or the Managing  Director according as the employee is  serving  in the Circle or in or under Central Office; (ii) in the case of Staff Officers of various grades and  of other  employees  to whom the salary  scales  applicable  to Staff Officers generally apply with or without modification, the Managing Director; (iii)  in the case of Senior Staff Appointments and  of  em- ployees  to  whom the salary, scales  applicable  to  Senior Staff Appointments generally apply with or without modifica- tion, the Executive Committee;      Sub-Rule  (1) of Rule 50 relevant for our  purposes  is also reproduced below: 50(1)(i)  The  Disciplinary Authority may itself,  or  shall when so directed by its superior authority, institute disci- plinary proceedings against an employee. 406 (ii) The Disciplinary Authority or any Authority higher than it may impose any of the penalties in rule 49 on an  employ- ee.     It may be further noted that an amendment in  Regulation 55 was approved by Central Board at its meeting dated August 25, 1988 which reads as under: 55(1)  Save as provided in sub-regulation (2) and as may  be directed  the Central Board, a Local Board may exercise  all the powers of the State Bank in respect of the Staff serving in the areas in its jurisdiction. 2(a)  The appointing and/or promoting authority for  various categories/grades of officers and employees shall be such as the  Executive  Committee may by general  or  special  order designate from time to time. (b)  No officer or employee of the Bank shall be  dismissed, discharged, removed or retired from the service of the  Bank or reduced to a lower grade or post or to a lower stage in a time scale by an authority lower than the appointing author-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 11  

ity.  Explanation  (For the purpose of clause (b)  the  term ’appointing authority’ shall mean and include the  authority who has been designated as such in respect of such class  or grade  of  officers  or employees to which  the  officer  or employee  concerned, as the case may be belongs at the  time when such Order is passed or any proceeding leading to  such Order or termination is initiated. ) (c)  Nothing in this sub-regulation shall affect the  powers of a disciplinary authority appointed or notified under  any award,  settlement under the Industrial Disputes Act,  1947, governing, affecting or regulating the service conditions of workmen  of  the  Bank, and for the purpose  of  clause  (b) above, the appointing authority shall be deemed to have been substituted by such disciplinary authority. (d)  The salary and other emoluments to be granted to  offi- cers and other employees shall be as laid down in the  Rules of Service approved by the Central Board and, where no  such rules have been laid down, as fixed by the Executive Commit- tee. 407 (e)  The power to grant pensions to officers and  other  em- ployees  leaving the service of the State Bank,  other  than pensions  provided  for  under the Rules  of  pension  funds respectively  applicable to them, shall be reserved  to  the Central Board. (f)  The grant of gratuities or other financial  assistance, either temporary or permanent, to widows, children or  other dependents of deceased officers or other employees shall  be made by the Executive Committee of the Central Board  except where grant of any such gratuity or financial assistance  is authorised  by  any general direction given by  the  Central Board.  Explanation (The term ’Officers’ in this  regulation shall  include  any employee to whom the  rules  of  service generally  applicable  to officers, apply  with  or  without modification.)  (Sub-regulation (2) substituted with  effect from 1.10.79)."     The Executive Committee of the Bank passed the following resolution on August 30, 1988:     In  exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section  (1) of  Section 43 of the State Bank of India Act, 1955  (23  of 1955) and amended sub-regulation (2)(a) of Regulation 55  of the  State  Bank  of India General  Regulations,  1955,  the Executive  Committee of the Central Board of the State  Bank of India hereby makes the following order:     The  initial appointments and/or promotions  to  various categories  of officers and other employees in the Bank  set out  in Column I here under shall be made by  the  authority specified in Column II. Column I                      Column II                               Employees working at branches i)  Employees other    a)   Subordinate       the concerned     than officers           Staff             Branch Manager                                               and deputy                                              General Manager                       ii)   Clerical        the concerned                             Staff          Regional Manager                                             and Dy. General                                               Manager.                       b)  Employees working at LHOs/ 408                                    Regional   Offices    and                                    their establishments                                  ---------------------------                                   The    concerned    Office                                   Manager/ Admn. Officer  at

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 11  

                                 Staff  Colleges or  Insti-                                   tutes  Manager  Dy.  Chief                                   Manager or, where there is                                   no post of above  descrip-                                   tions  the  head  of  con-                                   cerned dept/office. ii) Officers in       The Chief General Manager   junior management   for appointments/promotions in the   Grade Scale I       Circle and the Chief General   and Middle          Manager (Personnel & HRD) in   Management          Central Office for Central   Grade Scale II      Office establishment. iii)  Officers in        The Deputy Managing Director       Middle Management       Grade Scale III iv)  Officers in        The Managing Director      Senior Management      Grade Scale IV, V v)  Officers in Top    Recommending Authority:     Executive Grade     Scale VI, VII      The Directors Promotion Committee     and special        consisting of the Chairman, the     scales             Managing Director and the Director                        nominated by the Central Government                        in terms of clause (e),                        sub-section (1) of Section 19 and                        the Director nominated by the                        Reserve Bank of India in terms                        of clause (f) of sub-section (1)                        of Section 19 of the Act.                        Promoting/Appointing Authority:                        The  Executive Committee of the  Cen-                        tral Board. 409     All  authorisations in respect of  appointing  authority and/or  promoting authority made by the Executive  Committee from time to time after 1.10.79 shall be deemed to have been done  under the amended regulation 55.  Appointments  autho- rised  by  the Chief General Manager (Personnel  &  HRD)  in respect of JMGS I after 1.10.79 are also confirmed hereby.     All  the  employees of the bank in the cases  before  us where  appointed by the Executive Committee. Order  of  dis- missal  in their cases has been passed by the Chief  General Manager.  It  is an admitted position that on  the  date  of passing the order of dismissal the Chief General Manager was the  appointing authority. According to the Bank though  the employees were appointed by the Executive Committee, but  at the  time when inquiry was held and the order  of  dismissal passed, the Chief General Manager had become the  appointing authority. On the other hand the contention on behalf of the employees is that the Executive Committee being the appoint- ing authority, no authority lower than the Executive Commit- tee can pass the order of dismissal in their cases.  Accord- ing  to their contention the Chief General Manager, being  a lower  authority  than the Executive Committee,  he  had  no competence  to pass the order of dismissal. Learned  counsel for the employees in this regard referred to Article 311  of the Constitution of India and placed reliance on a  plethora of  cases decided on the basis of guarantee enshrined  under Article 311 of the Constitution.     The guarantee clause under Article 311(1) of the Consti- tution  of India which is relevant for our purpose reads  as under: "No  person who is a member of a Civil Service of the  Union or  an  All India Service or a Civil Service of a  State  or

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 11  

holds  a  Civil  post under the Union or a  State  shall  be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to that  by which he was appointed."     Now so far as the right which has been conferred on  the employees of the State Bank contained in Regulation 55(2)(a) is  that such officers or employees shall not  be  dismissed from  service of the State Bank by an authority  lower  than the  appointing authority. Thus a comparison of  the  provi- sions  contained in Article 311(1) of the  Constitution  and the  right  guaranteed to the employees of  the  State  Bank under  Regulation  55(2)(a) shows that there is  a  material difference between the language used in the two  provisions. Under Arti- 410 cle  311(1) the words used are "by which he was  appointed." In Regulation 55(2)(a) there are no such words "by which  he was appointed" and in its place the only right guaranteed is that  the  employee shall not be dismissed by  an  authority lower than the appointing authority. Thus the right  guaran- teed in case of the officers or employees of the State  Bank is  that the order of dismissal cannot be passed by  an  au- thority  lower than the appointing authority. A  perusal  of the  relevant Regulations and Rules mentioned above  clearly go  to  show that the Chief General Manager had  become  the appointing  authority  of the employees  in  question  under Regulation 55(2)(a) with effect from 1.7.74. Admittedly  the orders of dismissal have been passed long after these amend- ments  when  the Chief General Manager  had  already  become their  appointing  authority under the Regulations  and  the Rules.  The right that an officer or employee of  the  State Bank of India cannot be dismissed from service by an author- ity  lower  than the appointing authority is a  creation  of statutory  rules  and regulations. So far as  the  right  or protection guaranteed under Article 311 of the  Constitution is concerned, it applies to members of the Civil Service  of the  Union or an All India service or a Civil Service  of  a State or who holds a Civil Post under the Union or a  State. Admittedly the employees of the State Bank do not fall under any one of these categories and they cannot seek any protec- tion under Article 311(1) of the Constitution. The employees of the State Bank can only claim such rights which have been conferred  under Regulation 55(2)(a) of the General  Regula- tions. The only right conferred under the said provision  is that  the officers or employees of the State Bank cannot  be dismissed by an authority lower than the appointing authori- ty. With the risk of repetition it may be stated that on the date  when  the order of dismissal has  been  passed,  Chief General Manager had already become the appointing  authority and as such the order of dismissal has not been passed by an authority lower than the appointing authority.     Apart  from the view taken by us as mentioned above  the Regulation  55 has been amended by a resolution of the  Cen- tral Board dated August 25, 1988 with retrospective  effect. It  has now been made clear in the explanation that for  the purpose  of clause (b) the term appointing  authority  shall mean  and include the authority who has been  designated  as such  in respect of such class or grade of officers  or  em- ployees  to which the officer or employee concerned, as  the case may be belongs at the time when such order is passed or any  proceedings  leading to such order  or  termination  is initiated.  This provision now concludes the controversy  if any and clearly provides that the appointing authority shall mean and include the authority who has 411 been  designated  as  such at the time when  such  order  is

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 11  

passed.  It was contended on behalf of the  Learned  counsel for  the employees that the Bank had no power to  amend  the Regulations  with retrospective effect. We see no  force  in this  contention. Section 50(2)(a) of the Act  clearly  pro- vides  that  all regulations made under this  section  shall have effect from such earlier or later date as may be speci- fied in the regulation. Thus the regulations can be made  to give  effect from earlier dates also as may be specified  in the  regulations.  We  find no force in  the  contention  of learned counsel for the employees that they had vested right in  this regard and the same could not have been taken  away by  making  regulations  with  retrospective  effect.  There cannot  be  any vested right in such a  matter.  As  already mentioned  above it was a right conferred  under  Regulation 55(2)(a)  and  the same can be  amended  with  retrospective effect also in case the authority competent to make  regula- tions has been given a right to make regulations with retro- spective effect. It has been held in State of Jammu &  Kash- mir v. Triloki Nath Khosa & Ors., S.C.R. 1974 Vol. 1771 that it  is  well settled that a Government  servant  acquires  a ’status’  on appointment to his office and as a  result  his rights  and  obligations are liable to be  determined  under statutory or constitutional authority which for its exercise requires  no reciprocal consent. In Bishun Narain  Misra  v. The  State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, AIR 1965 Vol. 52  SC 1567  it was held that new rule reducing the age of  retire- ment  from  55  years to 53 years could not be  said  to  be retrospective.  The proviso to the new rule and  the  second notification  were only methods to tide over  the  difficult situation which would arise in the public service if the new rule  was  applied at once and also to  meet  any  financial objection  arising out of the enforcement of the  new  rule. The  new  rule therefore, could not be struck  down  on  the ground that it was retrospective in operation. In Roshan Lal Tandon v. Union of India & Anr., and Kunj Behari v. Union of India  & Ors., AIR 1967 SC Vol. 541889 it was held that  the legal  position of Government servant is more one of  status than  of contract. The hallmark of status is the  attachment to a legal relationship of rights and duties imposed by  the public law and not by mere agreement by the parties.  Emolu- ment of the Government servant and his terms of service  are governed by statute or statutory rules which may be  unilat- erally  altered by he Government without the consent of  the employee.  It  was further held in the above case  that  the petitioner had no vested contractual right in regard to  the terms  of his service and that the same can be altered  uni- laterally. We may further add that the prohibition if any to alter  the terms and conditions can be found only under  the Constitution  of India and in case power of the rule or  law making  authority  is not circumscribed or  limited  by  any constitutional 412 mandate then it has power to amend such terms and conditions of service unilaterally without the consent of the employee. In  the  cases in hand before us the right  whatsoever  con- ferred  on the employees of the State Bank was on the  basis of Regulation 55(2)(a) and the Central Board of the Bank was authorised  to  amend such regulations from any  date  under Section 50(2)(a) of the Act.     In  the  result the appeals filed by the State  Bank  of India  in  the case of Vijaya Kumar and T. Dayakar  Rao  are allowed,  the impugned orders passed by the High  Court  are set  aside and the cases are remanded to the High Court  for deciding  the writ petitions on other points  in  accordance with law. Now so far as the appeal filed by Sh. A.K.  Sunda-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 11  

rarajan  is concerned, the point decided by us shall  remain concluded  but  the appellant would be free to  raise  other points  before this Court which are left undetermined.  This case may now be listed for further hearing and final dispos- al at an early date.     In the facts and circumstances of the case, the  parties shall bear their own costs. Y. Lal                     C.A. No. 3392 & 3393 of 1990                            allowed. C.A. No. 3394 of 1990                         ordered  to  be  listed  for   final heating. 413