IMPORTANT POINT
Order of removal or dismissal from service can be passed only when an employee is in service – If a person is not in employment, question of terminating his service ordinarily would not arise unless there exists a specific rule in this behalf.

JUDGMENT :

RAJESH BINDAL, J.

1. The challenge in the present appeal is to the judgment¹ [Dated 30.07.2009] of the High Court² [High Court of Bombay] passed in A Writ Petition³ [Writ Petition No. 15 of 1995]. Vide the aforesaid judgment, the Division Bench of the High Court had set aside the order dated 03.03.1993, passed by the appellant-Bank, wherein the punishment of dismissal was imposed upon the respondent no. 1 and the order dated 23.07.1993, by which the appeal filed by him was dismissed by the Appellate Authority.

FACTS

2. Briefly the facts, available on record, are that the respondent no. 1 was appointed as an Apprentice in the appellant-Bank⁴ [United Commercial Bank] in the year 1952. In the year 1974, he was posted as a Branch Manager at Moradabad Branch. From there, he was transferred to Calcutta Main Branch as an Assistant Manager. In the year 1976, the respondent no. 1 was promoted and was transferred to Bombay as Senior Management Scale-IV Officer. Between the year 1988-90, he served as an Assistant General Manager at Bombay Main Branch. He attained the age of superannuation on 02.07.1991 and was due to retire on 31.07.1991. An intimation notice for retirement was served upon him on 07.05.1991. Immediately, thereafter on 17.06.1991, the respondent no. 1 was served with a memo requiring him to explain the irregularities and lapses relating to certain accounts during his tenure when he was heading the Bombay Main Branch. Vide letter dated 20.06.1991, he sought time and certain documents to enable him to reply to the show cause notice. A fresh notice was served upon him on 06.07.1991, to which the respondent no. 1 again sought time and the documents for filing his reply. On 15.07.1991, the General Manager (Personnel) exercising power under Regulation 12 of the 1976 Regulations⁵ [The United Commercial Bank Officer, Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976] placed the respondent no. 1 under suspension and ordered that the respondent no. 1 shall not be retired from the service of the Bank, despite attaining the age of superannuation under Regulation 20(3)(iii) of the 1979 Regulations.⁶ [The United Commercial Bank Officer’s Service Regulations, 1979]

3. Aggrieved by the order of suspension, the respondent no. 1 preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 07.11.1991. A charge-sheet dated 07.12.1991 was served upon the respondent no. 1 on 10.12.1991 and he was called upon to face the departmental enquiry. The respondent no. 1 filed his reply to the charge-sheet, denying all the allegations as baseless. The order of suspension was challenged by the respondent no. 1 by filing a Writ Petition⁷ [Writ Petition No. 3667 of 1991] before the High Court, which was disposed of on 10.01.1992, with certain directions regarding the enquiry, while not interfering with the order of suspension.

4. On 09.04.1992, the Inquiry Officer submitted his report. On 03.03.1993, the Disciplinary Authority dismissed the respondent no. 1 from the service under Regulations 7(3) read with Regulation 4-D of the 1976 Regulations. The respondent no. 1, aggrieved against the order of dismissal, preferred a statutory appeal, which was dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 23.07.1993.

5. The aforesaid order was challenged by the respondent no. 1 by filing a Writ Petition in the High Court, which was allowed vide impugned order. Against the aforesaid order, the appellant-Bank is in appeal before this Court.

ARGUMENTS

6. Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, learned Additional Solicitor General of India appearing for the appellant-Bank, submitted that the impugned judgment of the High Court has been passed on a wrong premise, without properly appreciating the arguments. The 1979 Regulations clearly permitted action even against a retired employee. He submitted that Regulation 20 thereof which was duly approved by the Reserve Bank of India and the Central Government has to be given its full effect. However, the High Court has gone wrong in h