Dismissed¶114

Akshay Kumar N v. State Bank of India

Karnataka HC12 Feb 2025WP/3035/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Probationer termination; termination simplicitor; unsatisfactory performance; Circle Based Officer (CBO); State Bank of India; Rule 16(3) State Bank of India Officers' Service Rules 1992; assessment test 86/200 marks; extended probation; re-assessment test; legitimate expectation inapplicable; no misconduct allegation; SBI v. Palak Modi (2013) 3 SCC 607; Articles 226 and 227 Constitution of India; Karnataka High Court; Justice S.G. Pandit; Writ Petition No.3035/2024 (S-DIS); writ petition dismissed/rejected.

What did the court decide?

The only point for consideration was whether the impugned order of termination requires interference; the Court answered the point in the negative. ¶51

Akshay Kumar N Vs State Bank of India — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶114

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order of termination of the petitioner from the service of the Bank requires interference at the hands of this Court.

¶50

Court's answer

The only point for consideration was whether the impugned order of termination requires interference; the Court answered the point in the negative.

¶51

Ratio / Principle

Confirmation in the Bank (JMGS-I) was conditional upon satisfactory completion of in-service training during probation, satisfactory completion of mandated e-lessons, and qualifying in the assessment as per standards determined by the Bank; a candidate who fails to achieve the stipulated minimum standards may have his/her services terminated as per the Bank's policy in force.

¶61

Key takeaways

Rule 16(3) of the 1992 Rules permits the respondent-Bank to terminate the services of a direct appointee during the period of probation by one month's notice or payment of one month's emoluments in lieu thereof, where the Competent Authority is of the opinion that the officer is not fit for confirmation.ratio¶62
Since the petitioner's performance in the re-assessment test was not up to the minimum standards fixed by the Bank, Rule 16(3) empowered the Bank not to confirm his services.ratio¶95

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (S.G. Pandit, J.), Writ Petition No.3035/2024 (S-DIS), decided 12.02.2025 — dismissal of writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 challenging termination of a probationer Circle Based Officer of State Bank of India. Appointed vide letter dated 20.07.2022 on six months' probation, confirmation being conditional on satisfactory completion of in-service training, mandated e-lessons and qualifying in the Bank's assessment test; having scored 86/200 in the assessment test dated 06.04.2023 and failing the re-assessment of 19.08.2023, his services were terminated by letter No.HR/RP/1289 dated 25.09.2023 in terms of Rule 16(3) of the State Bank of India Officers' Service Rules, 1992. Held: the termination is a termination simplicitor for unsatisfactory performance, not founded on any allegation of misconduct; Rule 16(3) permits termination during probation where the Competent Authority opines the officer is not fit for confirmation; failure in the assessment test cannot be blamed on alleged non-provision of proper training, materials and test pattern having been furnished; principles of legitimate expectation are unavailable in a case of termination simplicitor. Reliance placed on State Bank of India and Others v/s Palak Modi and Another, (2013) 3 SCC 607. Writ petition rejected.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT

¶5

WRIT PETITION No.3035/2024 (S-DIS)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

AKSHAY KUMAR N., S/O SRI NINGARAJU M., AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/AT D.NO.1-66, POST OFFICE ROAD KOLLEGALA TOWN CHAMARAJANAGARA-571440.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. RAGHAVA P., ADV.)

¶10

AND:

¶11

STATE BANK OF INDIA REP. BY CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER NO.65, ST. MARKS ROAD BENGALURU-560001.

¶12

GENERAL MANAGER

¶13

HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT LOCAL HEAD OFFICE, 3^RD FLOOR NEW ANNEXURE BUILDING LHO CAMPUS, NO.65 ST. MARKS ROAD BENGALURU-560001.

¶14

BRANCH MANAGER

¶15

P.B. NO.1, CAR STREET BRANCH

¶16

¶17

CHAMARAJANAGAR-571313.

¶18

….RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI.T.P. MUTHANNA, ADV. FOR R1 TO R3)

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE TERMINATION LETTER BEARING NO.HR/RP/1289, DATED SEPTEMBER 25, 2023 AT ANNEXURE-A, THEREBY REINSTATING THE PETITIONER AS CIRCLE BASED OFFICER (CBO), TO THE POST FROM WHICH HE WAS ILLEGALLY TERMINATED AND ETC.

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 04/02/2025 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT

¶23

CAV ORDER

¶24

The petitioner, a terminated Probationer of

¶25

respondent-State Bank of India (for short “Bank”) is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, calling in question the termination letter bearing No.HR/RP/1289 dated 25.09.2023 (Annexure-A) and for a direction to reinstate him as Circle Based Officer (for short “CBO”) with continuity of service and consequential benefits.

¶26

The Brief facts of the case are:

¶27

¶28

The petitioner, in pursuance of Recruitment

¶29

Notification dated 09.12.2021 applied for the post of Probationer Officer/Circle Based Officers. On undergoing the recruitment process, the petitioner was selected and appointed as Circle Based Officer vide appointment letter dated 20.7.2022. The appointment was initially on probation for a period of 6 months from the date of appointment and confirmation in the Bank was subject to certain conditions stated in the letter of appointment. One of the conditions was that the satisfactory performance in the branches/offices allotted, continuous assessment during the probation period and completion of prescribed e- lessons/certificate courses. Further, it was made clear that those candidates who qualify in the assessment as per the standards determined by the Bank from time to time, will be confirmed in service of the Bank-JMGS-I. It is also made clear that if any candidate fails to achieve minimum standards stipulated,

¶30

¶31

his/her services may be terminated as per the policy of the Bank in force at the material time. It is stated that the petitioner was administered assessment test on 06.04.2023 and he failed in the test scoring 86 marks out of 200 marks. Hence, probation of the petitioner was extended for next 3 months w.e.f. 02.05.2023. Thereafter, again, the petitioner was put to reassessment test on 19.08.2023 and his performance in the re-assessment was not up to minimum standards specified by the Bank at the time of appointment. As the petitioner failed to qualify for confirmation, the petitioner was terminated from service of the Bank in terms of Rule 16(3) of State Bank of India Officers’ Service Rules, 1992 (for short “1992 Rules”). Questioning the said termination, the petitioner is before this Court in this writ petition.

¶32

Heard learned counsel Sri.Raghava Parthasarathy

¶33

for petitioner and learned counsel Sri.T.P.Muthanna for

¶34

¶35

respondents. Perused the entire writ petition papers, including the written arguments filed on behalf of the petitioner.

¶36

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the action of the respondents in terminating the petitioner is wholly illegal, arbitrary and opposed to the material on record. It is submitted that the petitioner was appointed as CBO under order of appointment dated 20.07.2022 and initially he was posted to 3^rd respondent-Branch, but he was not given proper banking work. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was posted from November 2022 to January 2023 at 3^rd respondent-Branch and thereafter, from February 2023, he was deputed for training at the State Bank Institute of Learning and Development, Jakkur Flying Club, Bangalore and from 20^th February, 2023 to 25^th September, 2023 to Regional Business Office at Chamarajanagar. Learned counsel

¶37

¶38

would submit that the respondent-Bank failed to comply with the terms and conditions as prescribed by them by not providing proper training to the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner was given job of opening bank accounts provided in a pre-filled Format and without there being any interaction with the customers or necessary training imparted. It is also submitted that the petitioner was not given any training as regards digital bank softwares, loan and credit facilities, customer interaction and other related aspects. Further, learned counsel would submit that the petitioner completed 50 e- lessons and there was no deficiency on the part of the petitioner.

¶39

Learned counsel would submit that the petitioner

¶40

instead of posting the petitioner to proper Branch, the petitioner was posted elsewhere and he had no opportunity to acquaint with the work of Bank. Learned counsel would submit that the petitioner has legitimate

¶41

¶42

expectation from the respondent-Bank that it would provide proper training and thereafter, the petitioner would be put to assessment. But the respondents have failed in their obligation and the petitioner was not given an opportunity to get exposure or to get acquainted with the banking business to write examination. Sufficient training was also not imparted as respondents have not complied their obligation of providing proper training, the petitioner cannot be punished. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court with regard to legitimate expectation. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is terminated on the ground of unsatisfactory performance and there is no allegation of misconduct, adverse entries or lack of integrity. In the said circumstance, he submits that the petitioner ought to be given one more opportunity by setting aside the impugned order of termination.

¶43

¶44

Per contra, learned counsel Sri.T.P.Muthanna for

¶45

respondent would submit that the petitioner was appointed as CBO under appointment letter dated 20.07.2022, initially on probation for a period of six months. The petitioner failed to satisfactorily complete the training and also failed to qualify in the assessment test. Therefore, he submits that the termination of petitioner is for unsatisfactory performance and not for any misconduct. He submits that it is an order of termination simplicitor without attaching stigma. As such, he submits that it needs no interference by this

¶46

Court. Learned counsel Sri.Muthanna would further submit that along with petitioner, other 12 officers were appointed as CBOs and all of them have successfully passed the assessment test and the petitioner is the only person who failed to pass assessment test. Therefore, he cannot complain of non-providing training.

¶47

¶48

Thus, learned counsel Sri.Muthanna prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶49

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties

¶50

and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, the only point which falls for consideration is as to whether the impugned order of termination requires interference at the hands of this Court?

¶51

The answer to the above point would be in the negative for the following reasons:

¶52

The petitioner was appointed as Circle Based Officer in the respondent-Bank under order of appointment dated 20.07.2022 (Annexure-B) on probation for a period of 6 months from the date of appointment. The order of appointment makes it clear that confirmation in the Bank shall be subject to certain conditions. The relevant conditions at paragraph 5 (c),

¶53

¶54

(d) and (e) for the purpose of present case, reads as follows:

¶55

“5(a)…………

¶56

(b)…………

¶57

(c) Satisfactory completion of the inservice training during probation.

¶58

(d) Satisfactory completion of mandated e-lessons as may be prescribed by the Bank from time to time.

¶59

(e) Satisfactory performance in the branches/offices allotted, continuous assessment during the probation period and completion of prescribed e-lessons/ certificate courses. Those candidates who qualify in the assessment as per the standards determined by the Bank from time to time, will be confirmed in service of the Bank-JMGS-I. If any candidate fails to achieve minimum standards stipulated, his/her services may be terminated as per policy of the Bank in force at the material time.”

¶60

¶61

The above conditions of appointment makes it clear that confirmation would be on satisfactory completion of inservice training during the probation; satisfactory completion of mandated e- lessons; and most importantly qualifying in the assessment as per standards determined by the Bank from time to time and a candidate who fails to achieve minimum standards stipulated, his/her service may be terminated as per the Policy of the Bank in force.

¶62

Rule 16(3) of State Bank of India Officers Service Rules 1992 (for short ‘1992 Rules’) permits the respondent to terminate the services of direct appointee by one month’s notice or payment of one month’s emoluments in lieu thereof, during the period of probation if the Competent Authority is of the opinion that the Officer is not fit for confirmation. The relevant provision of Rule 16(3) of 1992 Rules reads as follows:

¶63

¶64

16. (3) Where during the period of probation, including the period of extension, if any, the competent authority is of the opinion that the officer is confirmation:-not fit for

¶65

(a) 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, and

¶66

(b) in the case of a promotee from the Bank's service, he may be reverted to the grade or cadre from which he was promoted.

¶67

Annexure-R2 produced along with statement of objections provides the method of training and

¶68

assessment which reads as follows.

¶69

CIRCLE BASED OFFICERS 2021: JOINING ON

¶70

01.08.2022

¶71

TRAINING AND ASSESSMENT

¶72

Circle Based Officers are scheduled to join the Bank on 01.08.2022. The batch shall be on probation for a period of 6 months. In terms of

¶73

¶74

various approvals accorded for the previous batch of CBOs joined in FY 2021-22, and a few modifications approved for future batches, the training and assessment schedule for Circle Based Officers 2021 is as under:

¶75

Training:

¶76

*Training*	*Location*	*Duration*
Orientation Program for CBOs	SBILDs	2 days
Induction Training Program for CBOS	SBILDs	2 days
On-the-job Branch Training	Semi-urban centers	6 months (including the above)

¶77

Assessment:

¶78

	*Assessment* *parameter*	*Weightage*
1.	Assessment Test	200 marks
2.	50 E-lessons	Mandatory completion

¶79

Assessment Test shall be conducted on completion of 5 months of probation. e-Lessons are to be completed within the probation period of 6 months.

¶80

Assessment Test Pattern: CBOs shall be required to appear for an assessment test carrying 200 marks. The test, of 3-hours duration, shall consist of 175 questions (125 MCQs of 1 mark each, 5 case-lets having 25

¶81

¶82

questions of 1 mark each and 5 case-studies having 25 questions of 2 marks each).

¶83

The assessment test shall cover the entire gamut of training provided to CBOs during the probation period, including Induction Training Program as placed on Sharepoint.

¶84

Confirmation: Candidates, being otherwise found eligible on other extant criteria, shall be considered for confirmation in JMGS-I on completion of 50 mandatory e-Lessons and scoring 50% marks (45% for SC, ST & PwD) in the assessment test.

¶85

Extension

¶86

of probation:

¶87

Probation/Training period of Circle Based Officers who are unable to achieve 50% marks (45% for SC, ST & PwD) in the assessment test and/or do not complete all the e-Lessons within the probation period shall be extended by 3 months.

¶88

Such candidates shall be provided a re-test opportunity any time after completion one month from the previous test, while e-Lessons shall have to be completed within two months of the extended period. However, confirmation of such

¶89

¶90

officers shall be on completion of the extended period of probation only.

¶91

Candidates not qualifying in the assessment test and/or not completing the mandatory e-Lessons during the extended probation period, shall be summarily terminated.

¶92

Cut-off date: Cut-off date for the Assessment Test for the batch shall accordingly be 31.12.2022.

¶93

It also furnishes particulars of training, location and

¶94

duration and the assessment to be made on such training.

¶95

A perusal of the impugned order of termination makes it clear that the petitioner’s performance in the re-assessment test was not up to the minimum standards fixed by the Bank. If the performance of the petitioner is not satisfactory or not up to the standards, Rule 16(3) empowers the Bank not to confirm the services of such Officer. The order of termination at Annexure-A dated 25.09.2023 is the communication of

¶96

¶97

termination simplicitor. The termination is not on any

¶98

allegation or misconduct and it is only for unsatisfactory performance.

¶99

Rule 16 of 1992 Rules under which, the petitioner is terminated from service fell for consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of STATE BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS v/s PALAK MODI AND ANOTHER reported in (2013)3 SCC 607 , wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court at paragraphs 32, 33 and 34 has observed as follows:

¶100

“32. A combined reading of Rules 15(1) and 16 and Para 5 of the conditions of appointment makes it clear that a person appointed as a Probationary Officer remains on probation for a minimum period of two years at the end of which he is entitled to be confirmed if the competent authority is of the opinion that he has satisfactorily completed the training in any institution to which he may have been deputed and the

¶101

¶102

in-service training in the Bank. The Probationary Officer can also be subjected to screening for judging his merit and suitability. If the Probationary Officer fails to satisfactorily complete the training(s) or fails to pass the screening test or his service is not satisfactory, then the Bank can extend the period of probation by a further period of which the out-limit is one year. In a given case, the competent authority can, if it is of the opinion that the Probationary Officer is not fit for confirmation, terminate his service by one month’s notice or payment of one month’s emoluments.

¶103

33. It is thus evident that satisfactory performance during the period of probation, successful completion of training(s) and passing of the test conducted by the Bank for judging his suitability for the post constitute the touchstone for his confirmation.

¶104

34. The policy of confirmation, which was circulated vide letter dated 20.09.2010

¶105

¶106

envisaged placement of the Probationary Officers scoring 75% or more marks in the written test, group discussion and interview in MMGS-II. Those scoring less than 75% but minimum 50% (general category) and 45% (SC/ST/PWD) could be confirmed in JMGS-I. Those scoring less than 50% or 45%, as the case may be, are eligible to again appear in the confirmation test and qualify the same before completion of two years’ probation. If he fails to qualify the test second time, his service is liable to be terminated in terms of Rule 16(3) of the Rules. An alternative available to the Bank is to extend the period of probation of the candidate for maximum one year with two opportunities to appear in the confirmation tests at six-monthly interval.”

¶107

The main contention of the petitioner is that he

¶108

was not imparted proper training and not got exposure to the banking work to face the assessment test. It is not the case of the petitioner that in terms of

¶109

¶110

Annexure-R2, the petitioner is not provided the training. Moreover, as stated by him, the petitioner was initially posted to 3^rd respondent-Branch and thereafter for training at State Bank of India Learning and Development Center at Chamarajanagar Branch. If the petitioner fails in assessment test, he cannot blame the respondent-Bank stating that the Bank has not imparted proper training. Moreover, the petitioner was provided with the materials and he was also informed the method or pattern of the Test as could be seen from page 49 of the writ petition.

¶111

In a case of termination simplicitor, the petitioner cannot bring in the principles of legitimate expectation. When a person is appointed on probation with a precondition that he has to face the assessment test during the probation period, it is expected from the petitioner that he shall face the assessment test and qualify in the assessment test. The decisions on which

¶112

¶113

the petitioner placed reliance would not assist the petitioner, since it is a case of termination simplicitor for unsatisfactory service.

¶114

There is no merit in the writ petition and accordingly, the writ petition stands rejected.

¶115

Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE

¶116

mpk /-* CT:bms

Akshay Kumar N v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akshay Kumar N v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. T. Jayalakshmamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Dr. K. Prabhu Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Yashoda S Arumugham Vs the High Court of Karnataka

M/S R .R Gold Palace Private Limited Vs the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax

M/S Muralikrishna Infracon (Bangalore) Pvt. Ltd., Vs Senior Intelligence Officer

M/S Concord Construction Vs Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Tax (AUDIT-2)