Unreasonable delay in concluding disciplinary proceedings and non-compliance with regulations can be deemed unfair and prejudicial, warranting the closure of the proceedings and release of retirement benefits.

K.R. Shriram, J.

1. By an order dated 8th July 2013, the parties were put to notice that the petition may be disposed of finally at the admission stage itself. Hence rule. Respondents waive service. By consent of the parties, rule made returnable forthwith and taken up for final hearing.

2. The petitioner is 62 years old and retired from the 1st respondent-Bank on 30th April 2011. Two days before her retirement an order was issued by the respondents informing her that the disciplinary proceedings which had been pending against her for over 14 years, will continue even after retirement from service because of which her retirement benefits have been stopped. The background of this ‘disciplinary proceedings’ has to be looked into to decide this petition.

3. On or about 22nd March 1974, the petitioner joined the service of the first respondent-Bank as a Clerk. On or about 5th September 1983 the petitioner was promoted as an officer in JMG-Scale-I and on 1st January 2004 was promoted to JMG Scale-II officer. In the meanwhile, sometime in 1995, the petitioner was transferred as officer to the Andheri (West) branch of the respondent No.1. During this tenure at the Andheri (West) branch the petitioner was required to hold temporary charge of the branch when the Branch Manager was out of the branch temporarily. In the course of holding charge, the petitioner was required to pass cheques issued by customers after verification of the necessary details. During the petitioner's tenure as an officer in JMG, Scale-I in the Andheri (West) branch, a current account was opened in the name of one “Pratibha Pratishthan”. This account was opened on or about 28th September 1995 and the permission to open the account was granted by the then Branch Manager one H.C.Srivastava. As an officer, the petitioner was not concerned with the opening of account as the same was not within the purview of her duty. It was the sole prerogative of the Branch manager. The petitioner was also not aware of any alleged irregularity in the opening of the account in the name of “Pratibha Pratishthan”. On or about November 1995, when the Branch Manager was not available in the branch and the petitioner was holding charge, two high value cheques of the said Pratibha Pratishthan were presented. The petitioner after verifying the signatures on the two cheques presented with the signature card, passed the said cheques in the usual course of business.

4. In 1997, the petitioner was transferred to the Regional Office of respondent No.1 Bank as an officer. The petitioner received a show cause notice dated 5th March 1997 issued by respondent No.3 in which it was alleged that while she was posted as an officer at Andheri (West) branch of respondent No.1-Bank, she passed two cheques of very high value in account of Pratibha Pratishthan and she had ignored certain irregularities that existed in the opening of the said account. It was also alleged that the account was irregularly/unauthorizedly opened by the said Srivastava, the then Branch Manager for opening the Trust Account and despite that the petitioner had countersigned the cheques that were presented for payment and that amounted to commission/omission unbecoming of an Officer. The petitioner was called upon to respond to the charges leveled against her.

5. It must be noted that the event relates to the year 1995. The petitioner replied to the show-cause notice in which she explained that the admitted position was that the account was irregularly opened by the said H.S.Srivastava, the then Manager and the said petitioner had nothing to do with the opening of an account and she was not even aware of any such irregularities and there was no reason for the petitioner to even believe that there would be such irregularities. As regards the countersigning on the cheques, the petitioner clarified that the signatures on the said cheques tallied with the signature of the authorized signatory in the signature card, account op