The main legal point established in the judgment is that the initiation of disciplinary proceedings after an employee's retirement is subject to the provisions of the relevant pension and service regulations, and the issuance of show cause notice after retirement does not give rise to a fresh cause of action.

JUDGMENT

anil L. Pansare, J. - Heard Dr.Renuka S. Sirpurkar, learned advocate for the Petitioner and Mr. D.N. Mathur, learned advocate for the Respondent.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties.

3. The Petitioner who was lastly working as Senior Branch Manager with the Respondent-Bank, has retired on 31 May 2013 on attaining the age of superannuation. On 16 November 2015, a show cause notice came to be issued by the Respondent to the Petitioner, calling upon him to submit his comments on the lapses/irregularities allegedly committed by him while working as Senior Branch Manager, amravati Branch, during the period from 26 July 2009 to 31 May 2013. The Petitioner submitted his response/comments vide communication dated 8 august 2016 and denied all the allegations. Thereafter, a Memorandum dated 13 July 2017 along with articles of Charge and statement of allegations came to be served upon the Petitioner, which admittedly has been served after more than four years of the date of superannuation. The said Memorandum of Charges has been impugned before us.

4. We have heard both the sides.

5. The primary contention of the Petitioner is that the Respondent could not have initiated disciplinary proceedings after four years of his superannuation in absence of any Rule.

6. The question that requires answer in this Petition is, whether the show cause notice dated 16 November 2015 issued by the Respondent to the Petitioner, can be said to be sufficient compliance for initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the Petitioner, who stood retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31 May 2013 i.e. prior to issuance of show cause notice.

7. Mr. D.N. Mathur, learned advocate for the Respondent, has drawn our attention to Clause 48 of the Bank of Baroda (Employees') Pension Regulation, 1995 (for short, 'Employees' Pension Regulation, 1995') to contend that the competent authority i.e. the Respondent was well within its jurisdiction to issue show cause notice. Clause 48 of the Employees' Pension Regulation, 1995 provides that, the competent authority may withhold or withdraw a pension or a part thereof, and order recovery from pension of the whole or part of pecuniary loss caused to the Bank if the employee is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence etc. during the period of his service in any departmental or judicial proceedings.

8. Mr. D.N. Mathur, learned advocate contends that the Petitioner was reported to have committed certain acts or deeds of commission and omission while working as Senior Branch Manager at amravati during the period from 26 July 2009 to 31 May 2013 and was served with the aforesaid notice, calling upon his comments. The charges include steps and actions on the part of the Petitioner which were prejudicial, detrimental and injurious to the interests of the Bank and that he did not discharge his duties with devotion or diligence and that he did certain acts which were likely to cause financial loss to the Bank and that he flouted the norms relating to sanction of loans and advances. Since his response to show cause notice was not satisfactory, the Respondent has rightly issued Memorandum, articles of Charge and statement of allegations in terms of Regulations 6(3) of the Bank of Baroda Employees' (Discipline and appeal) Regulation, 1976 (for short, 'Discipline and appeal Regulation, 1976') read with Regulations 45 and 48 of the Employees' Pension Regulation, 1995.

9. Mr. D.M. Mathur, learned advocate for the Respondent, has then drawn our attention to Regulation 20(3)(ii) of the Bank of Baroda (Officers') Service Regulations, 1979 (for short, 'Officers' Service Regulations, 1979'), which provides as under :-

"Regulation 20 :

3 (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 insti