JUDGMENT:

S.B. SINHA, J.

1. The short question involved in this appeal, is the interpretation of the provisions of the Punjab National Bank (Officers ) Service Regulations, 1979 vis-`-vis Punjab National Bank (Employees ) Pension Regulations, 1995 (in short Pension Regulations ), which arises out of a judgment and order of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi passed in LPA No. 336 of 2002.

2. Respondent herein was an employee of the New Bank of India. On or about 4th September, 1993 the said Bank was amalgamated with the appellant bank. A charge sheet was issued against the respondent on 19th August, 1993. He reached the age of superannuation on 30th November, 1994. Appellant, however, relying on or on the basis of Regulation 20 (3) (iii) of the National Bank (Officers ) Service Regulations, 1979, continued the departmental proceedings against him. The same was completed after his retirement on 1st August, 1995. An order of punishment was passed by the disciplinary authority dismissing the respondent from service on 22nd Mach, 1996, directing :- Provisions of Regulation 20(3)(iii) of Punjab National Bank Officers Service Regulations, 1979 were invoked vide letter dated 23.11.1994 and it was inter alia made clear to Shri Kalra that though he will cease to be in service of the bank on 30.11.1994 (on attaining the age of superannuation) but the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him will continue as if he was in service until the disciplinary proceedings are completed and final orders is passed in respect thereof and that he will not be entitled for payment of retirement benefits till the proceedings are concluded and final order is passed thereon except his own contribution to CPF. The payment of terminal benefits to Shri Kalra, if any, will be made keeping in view the above order of dismissal .

3. An appeal preferred thereagainst by the respondent before the appellate authority was dismissed by an order dated 6th March, 1997 stating:-

The Board carefully considered the grounds of appeal preferred by Shri M.L. Kalra along with records of the case and after detailed discussions observed that the petitioner has not brought out any case based on the merits, which warrants interference with the decisions of the Disciplinary Authority. As such, the Board decided to confirm the punishment of Major penalty of Dismissal from service which shall be a disqualification for future employment imposed on Shri M.L. Kalra by the Disciplinary Authority. Shri M.L. Kalra be informed accordingly.

4. In the meanwhile, the respondent was paid his provisional pension in terms of Regulation 46 of Pension Regulations from the date of superannuation till the date of dismissal i.e. 22nd March, 1996.

5. Respondent claimed that he was entitled to payment of the said provisional pension till 6th March, 1997 i.e. till the disposal of his appeal by the appellate authority. On the said premise a writ petition was filed by him. A learned Single Judge of the High Court by an order dated 22nd February, 2002 directed that the arrears of provisional pension also be paid for the period during which the appeal was pending. An intra-court appeal filed by the appellant had been dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court by reason of the impugned judgment.

6. The High Court in support of its order relied on a decision of this Court in State of Maharashtra vs. Chandrabhan Tale : (1983) 3 SCC 387.

7. Mr. Amarendra Sharan, learned Additional Solicitor General, in support of the appeal submitted that the order of disciplinary proceeding culminated in an order passed by the disciplinary authority and in that view of the matter, the said order cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of payment of provisional pension.

8. Mr. Ambhoj Kumar Sinha, learned co