Regulation 20(3)(iii) of Canara Bank (Officers') Service Regulations, 1979, ensures the continuation of a disciplinary proceeding initiated before the retirement of a bank employee, and the deeming provision in the said regulation ensures that the officer is deemed to continue in service till completion of the proceedings.

ORDER :

Leave granted.

2. The respondent - writ petitioner while serving as Assistant General Manager of the Canara Bank superannuated on 31st May, 2007. After his retirement, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him by a charge-memo dated 28th June, 2007. Prior to the above, he was placed under suspension on 23rd November, 2006 and as it appears from the materials on record there were correspondences exchanged by and between the Authorities of the Bank with regard to the initiation of a disciplinary proceeding against the respondent-writ petitioner. However, nothing appears to have come out of the said exercise and the respondent - writ petitioner superannuated, as noticed above, whereafter a charge-sheet was served upon him. Aggrieved by the departmental proceeding initiated, the respondent - writ petitioner moved the High Court of Madras under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The learned single judge hearing the writ petition allowed the same and quashed the proceedings initiated against the respondent - writ petitioner. The said order was affirmed in the Writ Appeal filed by the Bank. Aggrieved, the present appeal in question has been lodged before this Court by the Bank upon grant of leave under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

3. The High Court while deciding the matter appears to have relied upon two judgments of this Court in UCO Bank & Anr. v. Rajinder Lal Capoor (2007) 6 SCC 694] and in UCO Bank & Anr. v. Rajinder Lal Capoor, (2008) 5 SCC 257]. The Bench hearing the petition for leave to appeal upon due consideration seems to have doubted the correctness of the views expressed in the said decisions of the coordinate Bench and accordingly by order dated 4th August, 2010 made a reference to a larger Bench. It is pursuant thereto that the matter has been placed before us for consideration.

4. The relevant regulations which would govern the controversy that has arisen in the present case are Regulations 20(3)(i), 20(3)(ii) and 20(3)(iii) of Canara Bank (Officers') Service Regulations, 1979, which may be extracted herein below:

"20. Termination of service

(1) .. .... ... .. ....

(3) (i) An Officer against whom disciplinary proceedings are pending shall not leave/discontinue or resign from 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 there of. The concerned Officer will not receive any pay and/or allowance after the date of superannuation. He will also not be entitled for payments of retirement benefits till the proceedings are completed and final order is passed thereon except his own contribution to CPF."

5. A reading of the Regulations would go to show that Regulation 20(3)(i) deals with serving bank employees who during the pendency of a departmental proceeding may seek to retire or resign from service. Such a course is prohibited except with the approval of the Bank. Regulation 20(3)(ii) clarifies that a disciplinary proceeding would be deemed to be pending where a notice has been issued to show cause why disciplinary proceedings shall not be instituted or the officer has been placed under suspension. Regulation 20(3)(iii) contemplates that an officer against who