Amarjit Singh vs Punjab & Sind Bank
2013 Latest Caselaw 5353 Del

*           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                        W.P.(C) No. 10968/2009

%                                            21st November, 2013

AMARJIT SINGH                                          ......Petitioner
                         Through:     Mr. Ranjan K. Chaurasia, Advocate.


                         VERSUS

PUNJAB & SIND BANK                                       ...... Respondent

                  Through:             Ms. Kittu Bajaj, Advocate.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes


VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1. This case is listed today as 15.11.2013 was declared a holiday.

2. By this writ petition, petitioner impugns the departmental proceedings

commenced against him pursuant to the charge-sheet dated 15.7.2009.

Petitioner pleads and contends that since the charge-sheet dated 15.7.2009

was being issued much after the petitioner took voluntary retirement on

24.7.2008, no departmental proceedings can be initiated after his voluntary

retirement in terms of the impugned charge-sheet. It is also contended and

pleaded that merely because a show cause notice was issued on 14.7.2008

cannot mean that departmental proceedings have been initiated prior to the

retirement because departmental proceedings commenced only on issuing of

the charge-sheet dated 15.7.2009 and not on issuing of the show cause notice

dated 14.7.2008 as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of

UCO Bank & Anr. Vs. Rajinder Lal Capoor (2008) 5 SCC 257.

3. Counsel appearing for respondent no.1-bank contends that there

is power to withhold the retirement benefits including pension by the bank

once departmental proceedings have commenced in terms of a show cause

notice dated 14.7.2008 and for which reliance is placed upon the Regulations

46 and 48 of the Pension Regulations 1995 of the respondent no.1-bank.

4. I have recently had an occasion to consider the issue, which

arises in the present case, as to whether departmental proceedings commence

only on issuing of the charge-sheet or even can be said to have commenced

on issuance of a show cause notice in the case of D.B.Madan Vs. Punjab

National Bank & Ors. in W.P.(C) 7481/2008 dated 29.10.2013. Paras 4 to 8

of the said judgment are relevant and they read as under:-

2. The following admitted facts in the present case be noted:

(i) The show cause notice was issued to petitioner on 30.05.2007 asking the petitioner to show cause as to why disciplinary proceedings should not be initiated.

(ii) Petitioner replied to the show cause notice in terms of the reply dated 12.06.2007.

(iii) Petitioner superannuated subsequently on 30.06.2007.

(iv) Before superannuation of the petitioner, the respondent no.1-

bank vide its order dated 28.06.2007 passed an order of continuation of the disciplinary proceedings initiated pursuant to the show cause notice dated 30.05.2007. By the same order the retiremental benefits to the petitioner were directed not to be paid.

(v) The charge sheet was issued to the petitioner on 06.10.2008 ie after his retirement.

3. I may note that there were certain other legal proceedings because petitioner had impugned the show cause notice dated 30.05.2007 by filing a writ petition in this Court being W.P (C) No. 1290/2008, and which was disposed of by the order dated 15.09.2008 directing the bank to take a conscious decision for issuing of the charge sheet, and the impugned chargesheet was thereafter issued, however, the issue in the present case only turns upon entitlement of the bank to commence the disciplinary proceedings after the superannuation of an employee. Related to this issue is the issue that when does the disciplinary proceedings commence i.e whether on issuance of a show cause notice proposing disciplinary proceedings or only on issuing of the chargesheet.

4. The issue in the present case is squarely covered as per the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of UCO Bank and Anr. Vs. Rajinder Lal Capoor (2008) 5 SCC 257. This judgment holds that Regulation 20 (3) (ii) of the 1979 Regulations of the bank which provides for a deeming provision of commencement of the departmental inquiry on issuing of a show cause notice is limited to the type of proceedings envisaged under sub-Rule (1) of Regulation 20 of 1979 Regulations. What is thus held is that the benefits of Regulation 20 (3) (ii) of deemed commencement of disciplinary proceedings on issuing of a show cause notice proposing disciplinary proceedings does not enure for the benefit of the bank where no charge sheet is issued against the employer prior to his

retirement for the disciplinary proceedings taken in terms of the 1976/1977 Regulations.

5. At this stage it is relevant to mention that so far as the respondent no.1-bank is concerned, there are two Regulations which are in question. The first Regulations are the 1976 Regulations and they are called Punjab National Bank Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1977 and Punjab National Bank (Officers) Service Regulations, 1979. Whereas the 1977 Regulations provide the procedure with respect to disciplinary proceedings against bank‟s employees, the 1979 Regulations with its Regulation 20 deals with those proceedings for terminating the services which arise not out of the disciplinary proceedings in terms of 1977 Regulations but under the circumstances specified in Regulation 20 (1) of the 1979 Regulations. Since it is entire Regulation 20 which would be relevant, let me at this stage reproduce the same, and which reads as under:

"20. Termination of Service

20.(1)(a) Subject to Sub-Regulation (3) of Regulation 16, where the Bank is satisfied that the performance of an officer is unsatisfactory or inadequate or there is a bonafide suspicion about his integrity or his retention in the Bank‟s service would be prejudicial to the interests of the Bank and where it is not possible or expedient to proceed against him as per the disciplinary procedure, the Bank may terminate his services on giving him three months‟ notice or emoluments in lieu thereof in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Government from time to time.

(b) Order of termination under this sub-regulation shall not be made unless such officer has been given a reasonable opportunity of making a representation to the Bank against the proposed order.

(c) The decision to terminate the services of an officer employee under sub-regulation (a) above will be taken only by the Chairman & Managing Director.

(d) The officer employee shall be entitled to appeal against any order passed under sub-regulation (a) above by preferring an appeal within 15 days to the Board of Directors of the Bank. If the appeal is allowed the order under sub-regulation (a) shall stand cancelled.

(e) Where an officer employee whose services have been terminated and who has been paid an amount of three months emoluments in lieu of notice and on appeal, his termination is cancelled, the amount paid to him in lieu of notice shall be adjusted against the salary that he would have earned, had his services not been terminated and he shall continue in the Bank‟ employment on same terms and conditions as if the order of termination had not been passed as all.

(f) An Officer employee whose services are terminated under sub- regulation (a) above shall be paid Gratuity, Provident Fund including employer‟s contribution and all other dues that may be admissible to him as per rules notwithstanding the years of service rendered.

(g) Nothing contained hereinabove will affect the Bank‟s rights to retire an officer employee under Regulation 9 (1).

20.(2) An officer shall not leave or discontinue his service in the Bank without first giving a notice in writing of his intention to leave or discontinue his service or resign. The period of notice required shall be 3 months and shall be submitted to the Competent Authority as prescribed in these regulations.

Provided further that the Competent Authority may reduce the period of 3 months or remit the requirement of notice.

20.(3)(i) An officer against whom disciplinary proceedings are pending shall not leave/discontinue or resign his service in the bank without the prior approval in writing of Competent Authority and any notice or resignation given by such an officer before or during the disciplinary proceedings shall not take effect unless it is accepted by the Competent Authority.

(ii) Disciplinary proceedings shall be deemed to be pending against any employee for the purpose of this regulation if he has been placed under suspension or any notice has been issued to him to show cause why disciplinary proceedings shall not be instituted against him and

will be deemed to be pending until final orders are passed by the Competent Authority.

(iii) The officer against whom disciplinary proceedings have been initiated will cease to be in service on the date of superannuation but the disciplinary proceedings will continue as if he was in service until the proceedings are concluded and final order is passed in respect thereof. The concerned officer will not receive any pay and/or allowance after the date of superannuation. He will also not be entitled for the payment of retirement benefits till the proceedings are completed and final order is passed thereon except his own contribution to CPF."

6. It is this very regulation which was the subject matter of interpretation by the Supreme Court in UCO Bank's case (supra) and the Supreme Court held as under:

(i) Regulation 20 (3) (ii) only applies to proceedings which are those as contained in Regulation 20 (1) and not to those proceedings which are disciplinary proceedings in terms of 1976 Regulations (1977 Regulations so far as the respondent no.1- bank is concerned).

(ii) The benefits of Regulation 20 (3) (ii) providing a deeming fiction of commencement of disciplinary proceedings on issuance of a show cause notice applies only to proceedings under Regulation 20 (1), and in other cases of disciplinary proceedings under the 1977 Regulations of the respondent no.1- bank, disciplinary proceedings only commence on issuance of a chargesheet and not issuance of a show cause notice seeking explanation for commencement of disciplinary proceedings.

(iii) Regulation 20 (3) (i) and (iii) do apply to disciplinary proceedings in terms of the 1977 Regulations of the respondent no.1-bank, and effectively it is held that for the benefits of sub- Regulations (i) and (iii) of Regulation 20 (3) to apply to the bank it is necessary that a chargesheet is issued before superannuation of the bank‟s employee.

(iv) The deeming fiction of Regulation 20 (3) (ii) can only apply for the benefit of proceedings under Regulation 20 (i) of

the 1979 Regulations and not for disciplinary proceedings under the 1977 Regulations of the respondent no.1-bank.

7. The relevant paras of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of UCO Bank (supra) are paras 13 to 23 and 29 to 31 and the same read as under:-

"13. Sub-regulation (1) of Regulation 20 of the 1979 Regulations, thus, deals with termination of service where the performance of an officer is unsatisfactory or inadequate or where there is a bona fide suspicion about his integrity or where his retention in the bank's service is prejudicial to interests of the disciplinary procedure. Other Sub- regulations of Regulation 20 provides for the mode and manner in which such termination may be effected as also his entitlement to prefer an appeal thereagainst and other benefits to which he would be otherwise entitled to.

14. Sub-regulation (2) of Regulation 20 of the 1979 Regulations places an embargo on an official to leave or discontinue his service of the bank without giving a notice in writing. It prescribes a period of notice.

15.Sub-regulation (3) of Regulation 20, however, places an embargo on an officer to leave or discontinue or resign from service without the prior approval in writing of the competent authority and a notice or resignation given by such an officer before or during the disciplinary proceedings shall not take effect unless it is accepted by the competent authority. Clause (ii) of Sub-regulation (3) of Regulation 20 must be considered from that aspect of the matter. It raises a legal fiction. Such legal fiction has been raised only for the purpose of "this Regulation" and for no other, which would mean Regulation 20(1). The final orders which are required to be passed by the competent authority although indisputably would be in relation to the disciplinary proceedings but evidently it is for the purpose of accepting resignation or leaving or discontinuing of the service by the employee concerned or grant of approval thereof. Clause (ii) of Sub-regulation (3) of Regulation 20 in effect and substance acts as a proviso to Clause (i) thereof.

16. Clause (iii) of Sub-regulation (3) of Regulation 20 is an independent provision. It provides for continuation of the disciplinary proceedings. Such disciplinary proceedings indisputably for the

purpose of applicability of Sub-regulation (3) must have been initiated in terms of the 1976 Regulations.

17. It is worth noticing the distinction between terminologies "proceeding pending" or "proceeding initiated". Clause (ii) of Sub- regulation (3) of Regulation 20 defines what would be pending, viz., for the purpose of attracting Clause (i) thereof.

18. A disciplinary proceeding is initiated in terms of 1976 Regulations, which are applicable only in a case where a proceeding is initiated for the purpose of taking disciplinary action against a delinquent officer for the purpose of imposing a punishment on him. Disciplinary proceedings, thus, are initiated only in terms of the 1976 Regulations and not in terms of the 1979 Regulations.

19. It is worth noticing that the 1979 Regulations would be attracted when no disciplinary proceeding is possible to be initiated. The 1976 Regulations, however, on the other hand, would be attracted when a disciplinary proceeding is initiated. Both operate in separate fields. We do not see any nexus between Regulations 20(1) and 20(2) of the 1979 Regulations and the 1976 Regulations.

20. The 1976 Regulations provide for the mode and manner in which a disciplinary proceeding is initiated. It expressly provides for service of charge sheet. Service of charge sheet is a necessary ingredient for initiation of disciplinary proceeding. A preliminary enquiry is not contemplated under the 1976 Regulations. If such an enquiry is held, the same is only for the purpose of arriving at a satisfaction on the part of the disciplinary authority to initiate a proceeding and not for any other purpose.

21. If it is found that a disciplinary proceeding can be and should be initiated, recourse to the 1976 Regulations would have to be taken, if not, the 1979 Regulations may be resorted to if the conditions precedent therefore are satisfied. It is only with a view to put an embargo on the officer to leave his job, Clause (ii) of Sub-Regulation (3) of Regulation 20 of the 1979 Regulations has been made. It's scope is limited.

22. We have noticed hereinbefore that each regulations operates in different fields. When a proceeding is initiated for the purpose of taking any disciplinary action on the ground of any misconduct which might have been committed by the officer concerned indisputably the

procedures laid down in the 1976 Regulations are required to be resorted to.

23. The 1979 Regulations would be attracted only for the purpose of termination of service. Had the intention of the regulation making authority been that the legal fiction created under Clause (ii) of Sub- regulation (3) of Regulation 20 would cover both Clauses (i) and (iii), the same should have been placed only after Clause (iii). In such an event, Clause (ii) of Sub-regulation (3) of Regulation 20 should have been differently worded. Some non-obstante clause would have been provided for making an exception to the applicability of the 1976 Regulations when a legal fiction is created, although it is required to be taken to the logical conclusion [See East End Dwellings Co. Ltd. v. Finsbury Borough Council (1951) 2 All.E.R 587], but the same would not mean that the effect thereof would be extended so as to transgress the scope and purport for which it is created.

29. In terms of the 1976 Regulations drawing up of a charge sheet by the disciplinary authority is the first step for initiation of a disciplinary authority. Unless and until, therefore, a charge sheet is drawn up, a disciplinary proceedings for the purpose of the 1976 Regulations cannot be initiated. Drawing up of a charge sheet, therefore, is the condition precedent for initiation of a disciplinary proceedings. We have noticed in paragraph 15 of our judgment that ordinarily no disciplinary proceedings can be continued in absence of any rule after an employee reaches his age of superannuation. A rule which would enable the disciplinary authority to continue a disciplinary proceedings despite the officers reaching the age of superannuation must be a statutory rule. A fortiori it must be a rule applicable to a disciplinary proceedings.

30. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the employer may take resort to a preliminary inquiry, but it will bear repetition to state that the same has a limited role to play. But, in absence of the statutory rules operating in the field, resorting to a preliminary enquiry would not by itself be enough to hold that a departmental proceeding has been initiated.

31. Initiation of a disciplinary proceeding may lead to an evil or civil consequence. Thus, in absence of clear words, the court must lean in favour of an interpretation which has been applied by this Court in the main judgment." (underlining added).

8. Since the admitted facts in this case are that chargesheet was issued to the petitioner only on 06.10.2008 i.e well after superannuation of the petitioner on 30.06.2007, therefore, in terms of the ratio in the case of UCO Bank (supra), disciplinary proceedings are initiated only on issuance of a chargesheet and not on issuing of show cause notice, and therefore, disciplinary proceedings could not be validly initiated in terms of the chargesheet issued after the superannuation of the petitioner. The impugned chargesheet is therefore liable to be and is accordingly quashed for this reason itself.

5. Therefore, it is quite clear that the ratio of the UCO Bank's

case (supra) is that merely by issuing of a show cause notice

departmental proceedings cannot be said to have commenced and they

can only commence on issuance of the charge-sheet. In the present case,

admittedly, the service regulations and the disciplinary proceedings

regulations of the respondent no.1- bank are the same as those dealt with,

considered and interpreted by the Supreme Court in UCO Bank's case

(supra).

6 The only issue to be examined by this Court is whether

Regulations 46 and 48 of the Pension Regulations 1995 of the

respondent no.1 provide for the fact that departmental proceedings can

be said to have commenced even on issuance of the show cause notice,

and not on issuance of the charge-sheet. In order to consider this issue it

is necessary to refer to the language of Regulations 46 and 48 and

therefore, the said regulations are reproduced hereunder:-

"46. Provisional Pension (1) An employee who has retired on attaining the age of superannuation or otherwise and against whom any departmental or judicial proceedings are instituted or where departmental proceedings are continued a provisional pension equal to the maximum pension which would have been admissible to him, would be allowed subject to adjustment against final retirement benefits sanctioned to him, upon conclusion of the proceedings, but no recovery shall be made where the pension finally sanctioned is less than the provisional pension or the pension is reduced or withheld etc. either permanently or for a specified period.

(2) In such cases the gratuity shall not be paid to such an employee until the conclusion of the proceedings against him. The gratuity shall be paid to him on conclusion of the proceedings subject to the decision of the proceedings. Any recoveries to be made from an employee shall adjusted against the amount of gratuity payable.

Explanation- In this chapter

(a) the expression „serious crime‟ includes a crime involving an offence under the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923);

(b) the expression "grave misconduct" includes the communication or disclosure of any secret official code or password or any sketch, plan, model, article, note, document or information, such as in mentioned in section 5 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923) which was obtained while holding office in the Bank so as to prejudicially affect the interests of the general public or the security of the State.

(c) the expression "fradulently" shall have the meaning assigned to it under section 25 of the Indian Penal Code. 1860(45 of 1860);

(d) the expression "criminal breach of trust" shall have the meaning assigned to it under section 405 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860);

(e) the expression "forgery" shall have the meaning assigned to it under section 436 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860).

48. Recovery of Pecuniary loss caused to the Bank (1) The competent Authority may withhold or withdraw a pension or a part thereof, whether permanently or for a specified period, and order recovery from pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Bank if in any departmental or judicial proceedings the pensioner found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence or criminal breach of trust of forgery or acts done fraudulently during the period of his service:

Provided that the Board shall be consulted before any final orders are passed:

Provided further that departmental proceedings, if instituted while the employee was in service, shall after the retirement of the employee, be deemed to be proceedings under these regulations and shall be continued and concluded by the authority by which they were commenced in the same manner as if the employee had continued in service:

Provided also that no departmental or judicial proceedings, if not initiated while the employee was in service, shall be instituted in respect of a cause of action which arose or in respect of an event which took place more than four years before such institution.

(2) Where the Competent Authority orders recovery of pecuniary loss from the pension, the recovery shall not ordinarily be made at the rate exceeding one-third of the pension admissible on the date of retirement of the employee:

Provided that where a part of pension is withheld or withdrawn, the amount of pension drawn by a pensioner shall not be less than the minimum pension payable under these regulations."

7 When we refer to Regulation 46, it is seen that it provides for

the situation where a person retires against whom any departmental or

judicial proceedings are instituted before his retirement, and in which case,

the employee would only be allowed a provisional pension. This regulation

also provides that once departmental proceedings are initiated even then

gratuity would not be paid till the departmental or judicial proceedings

which are instituted or continued conclude. In my opinion, Regulation 46 by

its language does not state that there is a power to institute departmental

proceedings by issuance of a charge-sheet even after the retirement of a

person. This Regulation 46 only talks of institution or continuation of

departmental proceedings which have to be necessarily read with the

disciplinary proceedings regulations, and which disciplinary proceedings

regulations do not provide for initiation of departmental proceedings by

issuing of a charge-sheet subsequent to the retirement of an employee. Once

the main disciplinary proceedings rules of the respondent no.1 do not permit

issuing of a charge-sheet after retirement, and only on the basis of which and

at such stage departmental proceedings commence, then after the retirement

of a person Regulation 46 cannot be interpreted to entitle that although

disciplinary proceedings rules do not permit issuing of the charge-sheet after

retirement, the same can be done in terms of Regulation 46. To do so would

be to violate the categorical ratio of UCO Bank's case (supra).

8(i) So far as the Regulation 48 is concerned, the same provides for

the situation for the bank to permanently or for a specified period order

recovery of pension for any pecuniary loss caused to the bank if in any

departmental or judicial proceedings the employee is found guilty of gross

misconduct or negligence etc. Once again, this regulation nowhere provides

that disciplinary proceedings by issuing of a charge-sheet can commence

subsequent to the retirement of an employee. Entitlement to withhold whole

or part of the pension for any pecuniary loss caused to the bank after the

disciplinary proceedings have concluded cannot mean that as per this

regulation there is an entitlement to commence departmental proceedings by

issuing of a charge-sheet after the retirement of an employee. As per the

first proviso also the respondent no.1-bank would have a right to continue

the departmental proceedings which it instituted while the employee was in

service even after the retirement, however the moot question still is that

when can the departmental proceedings be said to have commenced, and this

first proviso of Regulation 48 does not state that departmental proceedings

would be instituted even if a show cause notice is issued and a charge-sheet

is not issued. As per the ratio of UCO Bank's case (supra), which has been

reproduced above, the departmental proceedings are instituted i.e they

commence only on issuing of a charge-sheet and not on the issuance of a

show cause notice. As already stated above, it is disciplinary proceedings

rules which can/ will provide for the situation of deeming provision of

initiating or commencing of a departmental proceedings at the stage of and

by issuing only of a show-cause notice, and of the charge-sheet, and which

is not factual or legal position inasmuch as, the disciplinary proceedings

rules of the respondent no.1 admittedly are identical with the disciplinary

proceedings rules which were the subject matter of interpretation in UCO

Bank's case (supra) and therefore the disciplinary proceedings commence

only on issuing of the charge-sheet. I therefore, in view of the categorical

language of UCO Bank's case (supra), refuse to hold that the first

proviso of Regulation 48 entitles the respondent no.1 to validly

contend that departmental proceedings are initiated only on issuance of show

cause notice and not on issuance of a charge-sheet.

(ii) Even the second proviso of Regulation 48 only provides that

departmental proceedings or judicial proceedings can be instituted with

respect to a cause of action if arose within 4 years before retirement and not

before, however the moot question will be that when do the departmental

proceedings commence. Departmental proceedings as per the ratio in the

case of UCO Bank (supra) commence only on issuance of a charge-sheet

and not on the issuance of a show-cause notice.

9. As an argument I note that though this is not the case of the

respondent no.1 in the counter-affidavit that any judicial proceedings have

been initiated, but even assuming that judicial proceedings have been

initiated in terms of Regulation 48(1), the entitlement to withhold pension

would only take place if there is passed a final order in a judicial proceeding

holding that pecuniary loss has been caused to the bank. As of today, there

is no order of any court i.e no order in any judicial proceedings that

pecuniary loss has been caused to the respondent no.1-bank on account of

any misconduct and negligence etc etc of the petitioner, and therefore, the

respondent no.1-bank would be entitled to withhold or withdraw whole or

part of the pension. I may note that Supreme Court recently in the judgment

in the case of State of Jharkhand & Ors. Vs. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava &

Anr. in Civil Appeal No. 6770/2013 decided on 14.8.2013 while interpreting

a similar provision i.e Regulation 48(1) in question, has held that entitlement

to withhold pension would be only after the final order is passed in judicial

proceedings and not before.

10. Before concluding I would like to observe that the conclusion

in this case would be different if there was a specific language of Regulation

46 authorizing instituting a proceeding after retirement, i.e issuing a charge-

sheet after retirement, and if it was so, then the Bank could have claimed

entitlement to grant only provisional pension on issuance of a charge-sheet

after retirement. However, in the face of the categorical ratio of UCO

Bank's case (supra) I cannot hold otherwise that proceedings instituted on

issuance of a charge-sheet after the retirement will amount to disciplinary

proceedings instituted before retirement. It will always be open to the Bank,

if it wants to do so, to add to Regulation 46 that proceedings can be

instituted by issuing of a charge-sheet even after retirement of an employee.

11. In view of the above discussion, the following conclusions can

be drawn:-

(i) Petitioner was given voluntary retirement on 24.7.2008.

(ii) Before the voluntary retirement only a show cause notice was

issued to the petitioner on 14.7.2008 and was served on 21.7.2008.

(iii) No charge-sheet was issued against the petitioner before his

retirement on 24.7.2008 and the charge-sheet has been issued much

later on 15.7.2009.

(iv) As per the ratio in the case of UCO Bank (supra) the

departmental proceedings commence only on issuance of a charge-

sheet and not merely because a show cause notice has been issued.

(v) Regulations 46 and 48 of the respondent no.1-bank do not

contain any deeming provision of departmental proceedings having

commenced merely on issuance of the show-cause notice and

therefore in terms of the ratio of UCO Bank's case (supra), the

disciplinary proceedings in the present case can only be said to have

been commenced on issuance of the charge-sheet.

(vi) Since as of today, there is no final order passed in any judicial

proceedings holding the petitioner guilty of causing pecuniary loss to

the respondent no.1-bank on account of his alleged negligence or

misconduct etc etc there cannot be withholding of pensionary benefits

of the petitioner.

(vii) Accordingly, since the charge-sheet has been issued after the

retirement, there cannot be any valid departmental proceedings on the

basis only of issuance of the show cause notice because there is no

provision in any of the rules and regulations of the respondent no.1-

bank that departmental proceedings are deemed to have commenced

on issuance of show cause notice and when a charge-sheet is issued

after the retirement of the employee.

12. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. The

impugned charge-sheet dated 15.7.2007 and all proceedings emanating and

having taken place thereupon stand quashed. Petitioner will be entitled to

costs of Rs. 25,000/- for this writ petition. Respondent no.1-bank is now

directed to make payment to the petitioner of all his retirement benefits in

accordance with law within a period of three months from today and

petitioner will be entitled to interest at the rate of 6% p.a simple from the

date of his retirement till the period of three months from today and if the

retirement dues are not paid within this period then for future period

petitioner will be entitled to interest at 9% per annum simple till payment.

Petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly. All pending applications

stand disposed of.

NOVEMBER 21, 2013                          VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

ib