Service regulations and appointing authority govern dismissal competence; retrospective amendment to the rule was upheld.

Under State Bank of India service regulations, dismissal protection turned on Regulation 55, not Article 311(1), and the regulation barred dismissal only by an authority lower than the appointing authority. Because the relevant service rules had shifted appointing authority to the Chief General Manager by the time the dismissal orders were passed, that authority was competent and the challenge failed. The retrospective amendment to Regulation 55 was also valid: Section 50 of the State Bank of India Act, 1955 authorised regulations with effect from an earlier date, and no vested right prevented retrospective alteration of service conditions. The principal jurisdictional challenge succeeded in the Bank's favour.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, under the State Bank of India service regulations, a dismissal order could be passed by the Chief General Manager after he had become the appointing authority, notwithstanding that the employee had originally been appointed by the Executive Committee; (ii) Whether the retrospective amendment to Regulation 55 was valid and could determine the meaning of appointing authority for pending disciplinary action.

Issue (i): Whether, under the State Bank of India service regulations, a dismissal order could be passed by the Chief General Manager after he had become the appointing authority, notwithstanding that the employee had originally been appointed by the Executive Committee.

Analysis: The protection available to Bank employees arose from Regulation 55(2)(a), not from Article 311(1) of the Constitution of India. The regulation only prohibited dismissal by an authority lower than the appointing authority. On the relevant dates, the service rules and regulations had already shifted the appointing authority for the concerned categories to the Chief General Manager. The language of the regulation was materially different from Article 311(1), because it did not require dismissal by the very authority that had made the original appointment.

Conclusion: The Chief General Manager was competent to pass the dismissal orders, and the challenge on that ground failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the retrospective amendment to Regulation 55 was valid and could determine the meaning of appointing authority for pending disciplinary action.

Analysis: Section 50 of the State Bank of India Act, 1955 empowered the making of regulations with effect from an earlier date as specified. The amended explanation to Regulation 55 made it clear that the appointing authority for clause (b) would be the authority designated at the time the order was passed or proceedings were initiated. Since the power to regulate service conditions was statutory, there was no vested right preventing retrospective amendment in this field.

Conclusion: The retrospective amendment was valid and governed the cases.

Final Conclusion: The appeals by the Bank succeeded on the principal jurisdictional question, the High Court judgments were set aside in the relevant matters, and those cases were remitted for consideration of the remaining issues.

Ratio Decidendi: Where service regulations expressly define dismissal protection by reference to the appointing authority, the authority competent at the time of the dismissal order governs, and a statute authorising regulations from an earlier date permits valid retrospective amendment of such service rules.

---