P. B. BAJANTHRI, J.:–Heard learned counsels for the respective parties.

2. In the instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following relief/reliefs:—

“That this is an application for issuance of writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions to respondent no. 1 to pay the amount of post retirement benefits i.e. gratuity, Leave Encashment and retirement momento etc. after quashing the alleged Memorandum and charges issued by respondent no. 1, vide his memo No. HO/DAD/07/13-14/No. 216 dated 29.06.2013, 217 dt. 29.6.2013 and HO/DAD/07/14-15/No. 111 dated 28.05.2014 contained in Annexure-1, 2 and 10, E-Mail copy received by the petitioner in the afternoon of 25.06.2014 leveling second memorandum and chargesheet, after completion of Ist departmental proceedings which is everlasting story. In this way the petitioner is being unnecessarily harassed by the Respondents only with a view to delay the payment of retiral dues alongwith statutory and penal interest @ 12% per annum.”

3. The petitioner while working as Branch Manager was subjected to disciplinary proceedings in issuance of charge memo on 29.06.2013 and 28.05.2014. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 22.08.2013. It was not satisfied by the disciplinary authority. Thus, the disciplinary authority proceeded to hold an inquiry. The inquiring officer held that charges levelled against petitioner were proved. On receipt of inquiring officer’s report, disciplinary authority proceeded to issue second show cause notice along with inquiring officer’s report. However, counsel for the petitioner submitted that no second show cause notice was served. On the other hand, inquiring officer’s report was served along with the dismissal order on 22.10.2014 and it was communicated through special messenger on 11.11.2014 vide Annexure - 23 to I.A. No. 3 of 2019. Petitioner preferred appeal on 22.12.2014 and it was rejected on 05.06.2014. Hence the present petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner has attained age of superannuation and retired from service on 29.06.2013. Once an employee or officer of the respondent – Bank attained age of superannuation and retired from service during pendency of the departmental inquiry, disciplinary authority is not empowered to impose penalty under service Regulation No. 39. Therefore, imposition of penalty of dismissal from service under Regulation 39 - (b) Major Penalties “(v) dismissal which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for future employment.” is incorrect. It is further submitted that copy of the inquiring officer’s report was made available to the petitioner along with the order of dismissal dated 22.10.2014 whereby the petitioner has been denied opportunity of submitting his say on the inquiring officer’s report.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that imposition of penalty of dismissal against retired employee is impermissible for the reasons that Regulation 2010 is not applicable to such of those retired employees so as to invoke Regulation No. 39 of Regulation 2010 in imposing the penalty of dismissal from service.

6. On 04.08.2022 this Court passed the following order:—

“One of the question for consideration in the present petition is whether an employee/officer who has attained age of superannuation and retired from service could be punished while imposing the penalty of dismissal from service or not?

Perusal of Regulation called “Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulation, 2010”, Item No. 1 (3) relating to applicability of Regulation, 2010 which reads as under: -

“(3) They shall apply to every officer and employee of the Bank:

Provided that they shall not apply except as otherwise provided in these regulations or to such extent as may be specifically or generally specified by the board to,-”

Further Regulation No. 45 of Regulations, 2010 provides for continuation of disciplinary enquiry against retired official. If he is under suspension in that event master and serv