K.M. Varghese vs Central Bank Of India
2022 Latest Caselaw 6053 MP

                                                          1
                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                 AT JABALPUR
                                                        BEFORE
                                          HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
                                                 ON THE 25th OF APRIL, 2022

                                           WRIT PETITION No. 8717 of 2015

                              Between:-
                              K.M. VARGHESE S/O SHRI M.C. MATHAI , AGED
                              ABOUT 61 YEARS, 36, JUNIOR MIG, OLD SUBHASH
                              NAGAR GOVINDPURA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                         .....PETITIONER
                              (BY SHRI MANISH KUMAR VERMA, COUNSEL FOR THE
                              PETITIONER)

                              AND

                              CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA ITS CHAIRMAN AND
                              MANAGING DIRECTOR HEAD OFFICE AT
                              CHANDRA MUKHI BUILDING NARIMAN POINT
                              MUMBAI AND REGIONAL OFFICE AT 09, ARERA
                              HILLS BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                      .....RESPONDENTS
                              (NONE FOR THE RESPONDENT)

                            T h is petition coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the
                      following:
                                                           ORDER

This writ petition is filed assailing the order dated 7th March, 2015 passed by the appellate authority i.e. the Senior Regional Manager, Central Bank of India so also the order dated 4/12/2014 passed by the Disciplinary authority namely Deputy Regional Manager, Central Bank of India.

Petitioner's contention is that petitioner stood superannuated on 31/10/2014. After his superannuation vide order dated 4/12/2014, petitioner was visited with a penalty of dismissal which was held to be ordinarily a disqualification for future employment.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondents have mentioned in the impugned order that they had extended the period to pass a final order beyond the date of superannuation of the petitioner but that is not permissible in the eyes of law and has not been approved by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Signature SAN Not Verified No. 2693/2013 UCO Bank and others Vs. Rajendra Shankar Shukla Digitally signed by VAIBHAV YEOLEKAR decided on 15th February, 2018.

Date: 2022.04.30 17:09:46 IST

It is submitted that respondent's stand is that the competent authority had invoked regulation 20.3 (iii) of the Central Bank of India (Officers) Service Regulations, 1979 in the Subject Disciplinary action proceedings and had directed that in view of the notification of the said regulation in the subject charge-sheets

and addendum charge-sheet, the disciplinary proceedings would continue against the petitioner in the same manner as if he was in service of the Bank until the said proceedings in respect of said charge-sheets and addendum charge-sheet are brought to logical conclusion and final orders have been passed in respect thereof.

It is further submitted that vide order Annexure R-11 though petitioner was intimated that in respect of said regulation 20.3 (iii) of the Central Bank of India, he will not receive any pay/allowance after the said date of superannuation. He was also informed that he will not be entitled to payment of retirement benefits until the said proceedings are completed and final orders are passed thereof.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that thereafter, petitioner had filed an appeal which too has been rejected by the authorities in the cryptic non- speaking order.

Reliance is placed on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of High Court of Punjab and Haryana Vs. Amrik Singh 1995 Supp (1) SCC 321 wherein the Supreme Court held that if departmental enquiry is completed subsequent to retirement, then the order of dismissal passed will be inconsequential and superfluous. In para 5, it is held that decision could have been taken only in terms of Rule 9 of the Central Civil Services Pension Rules or under Rule 2.2 of the Punjab and Haryana Civil Services Manual Volume-II.

After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner as nobody is appearing for the respondents and perusing the return filed on behalf of the respondents so also the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of UCO Bank & others Vs. Rajendra Shankar Shukla (supra), it is evident that Supreme Court has held that an employee is entitled to subsistence allowance during the enquiry pending against him or her but if that employee is starved by finances of zero payment, it would be unreasonable to expect the employee to meaningfully participate in a departmental enquiry. Access to justice is a valuable right to any person even to a criminal.

It has placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme court in C.A. No. 2693/2013 and C.A. No. 4725/2010 decided on 20th May, 2010 and has held that provisions of the Regulation is that if a departmental enquiry is instituted against an officer/employee before his retirement can be continued after his retirement but none of the substantive penalties specified in Regulation 4 of 1979 Regulations, which include dismissal of service can be imposed on an officer/employee after his retirement on attaining the age of superannuation.

Similarly, the Supreme Court has placed reliance on its judgment in the case o f UCO Bank and another Vs. Rajinder Lal Capoor (2007)6 SCC 694

wherein it is held that as per the regulations, once a person is allowed to superannuate, then the proceedings can be concluded for withholding of his pension under the Pension Regulations and Discipline and Appeal Regulations were not attracted. The consequential chargesheet, enquiry report and the orders of punishment passed by the Disciplinary authority and the appellate authority were found to be illegal and without jurisdiction.

The facts of the present case are similar. Respondents have not brought on record any provision to demonstrate that despite superannuation, regulations permit to inflict penalty of dismissal when petitioner already stood superannuated on 31/10/2014. Similarly, respondents have not brought any document on record to show that after retirement, regulations permit continuance of departmental enquiry even for the purposes of inflicting major penalty of dismissal. Infact, there is nothing on record to demonstrate that respondent/Bank is entitled to terminate the services even after superannuation.

Therefore, in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of UCO Bank and others Vs. Rajendra Shankar Shukla (supra) so also in the case of UCO Bank and others Vs. Prabhakar Sadashiv Karvade and UCO Bank and others Vs. Rajinder Lal Capoor (supra) so also the High Court of Punjab and Haryana (supra), the order of penalty of dismissal from service cannot be sustained and, therefore, the impugned orders are quashed.

However, respondents are free to initiate proceedings for recovery of loss caused to the exchequer in view of the pension and pensionary dues of the

petitioner.

In above terms, the petition is disposed of.

(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE vy