ORDER :

1. Leave granted.

2. In this appeal, the appellants have questioned the correctness of judgment dated 29.04.2009 of the Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court which dismissed the writ appeal preferred by the appellants against the order of the learned Single Judge who allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent and held that penalty of dismissal from service could not be imposed upon him after his retirement from service with effect from 31.12.1993.

3. A perusal of the record shows M/s. Mangaldeep, a customer of appellant No.1 Bank filed a complaint before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in 1992 alleging deficiency of service. The then Zonal Manager of the Bank and the respondent were impleaded as parties in the complaint. After some time, the Zonal Manager issued a charge-sheet to the respondent, which became subject matter of challenge in Writ Petition No.244/1994 filed by the respondent in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. In the writ petition filed by him, the respondent also challenged the amendment made by appellant No.1 Bank in the service regulations. By an order dated 17.11.1995, the learned Single Judge declined to quash the charge-sheet or strike down the amendment made in the service regulations but directed that an authority higher than the Zonal Manager should look into the grievance of the respondent and decide whether any action is required to be taken against him. Letters Patent Appeal No.69 of 1996 filed by the respondent was disposed of by the Division Bench of the High Court with a direction that the General Manager should take a decision in the matter within a period of two months.

4. In compliance of the direction given by the Division Bench of the High Court, General Manager (Personnel) passed an order dated 13.07.2000 whereby he directed that a fresh charge-sheet be served upon the respondent. Accordingly, charge-sheet dated 9.9.2000 was issued for holding an inquiry against the respondent under the UCO Bank Employees’ (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 (for short, ‘the Discipline and Appeal Regulations). In all 15 charges of financial irregularities were levelled against the respondent.

5. The respondent challenged order dated 13.7.2000 and charge-sheet dated 9.9.2000 in Writ Petition No.2024/2000, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 15.4.2004.

6. After conducting detailed inquiry, the Inquiry Officer submitted report dated 19.7.2003. He concluded that some of the charges levelled against the respondent have been proved, some have been partly proved and some have not been proved. Upon receipt of the inquiry report, the disciplinary authority issued notice dated 28.10.2003 to the respondent so as to enable him to submit comments on the inquiry report. Finally, the disciplinary authority passed order dated 12.10.2004, whereby the respondent was dismissed from service. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal preferred by the respondent.

7. The respondent challenged the orders of the disciplinary authority and the Appellate Authority in Writ Petition No.2233 of 2006 on several grounds including the one that he could not have been dismissed from service after retirement on attaining the age of superannuation. The learned Single Judge referred to Regulation 20(3)(iii) of the UCO Bank (Officers) Service Regulations, 1979 (for short, ‘the 1979 Regulations’), Regulation 45 of the UCO Bank (Employees’) Pension Regulations, 1995 (for short, ‘the Pension Regulations’), the judgments of this Court in Union of India and others v. J. Ahmed (1979) 2 SCC 286, High Court of Punjab & Haryana v. Amrik Singh (1995) Supp 1 SCC 321 and UCO Bank and another v. Rajinder Lal Capoor (2007) 6 SCC 694 and held that penalty of dismissal from service could not have been imposed upon the respondent who had retired from service more than 11 years prior to the imposition of punishment. The Division Bench approved the view taken by the learned Single Judge and dism