The special law will always prevail over the general law.

Sambuddha Chakrabarti, J.

1. By this writ petition the petitioner has, inter-alia, prayed for a declaration declaring Regulation 20 (3) (iii) of the United Bank of India (Officers') Service Regulation, 1979 and Regulation 46(2) of the Pension Regulations of the said Bank to be ultra-vires the constitution, a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to act and proceed in accordance with law and cancel or withdraw the charge-sheet and other letters as mentioned therein and for other reliefs.

2. The case of the petitioner, inter alia, is that after rendering service for about 38 years only two days before his retirement he was served with a charge-sheet, dated October 29, 2011, alleging, inter-alia, that it was proposed to hold a disciplinary proceeding against him under Regulation 6 of the United Bank of India Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 (Service Regulations for short).

3. The charges against the petitioner were that while working as Ex-Deputy General Manager and CRM of UBI and Ex-General Manager of the Southern Region he had committed certain irregularities in sanctioning certain loan amounts and failed to take all possible steps to ensure and protect the interest of the Bank. He was further charged to have sanctioned loans irregularly to different companies. The petitioner had given his reply to the charge-sheet in due time. The Executive Director of the Bank had informed the petitioner that as he had attained the age of superannuation his service would cease on October 31, 2011 but the provisions of Regulation 20(3)(iii) of Discipline Regulations would be applicable as the departmental enquiry was pending against him. He was further intimated that the disciplinary enquiry, however, would continue against him as if he was in service till the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings and passing of the final order.

4. The petitioner made a representation to the Chairman and Managing Director of the Bank to the effect that if gratuity is not paid within 30 days of the retirement of the petitioner, he is entitled to interest thereon and it was not 3 justified on the part of the bank to withhold the gratuity amount applying the relevant provisions of the Officers' Regulations.

5. In October 2011 he addressed another letter to the Chairman and Managing Director alleging that about a year had elapsed since he had retired but the domestic enquiry had not been held. In the process a substantial portion of the superannuation dues have not been released to him and his request for leave to apply for employment in other organisation had also been turned down by the bank. This letter also went un-replied. In the year 2012-2013 he made yet another representation to the said authority and placed on record his grievances which were not remedied till then. The authority was once again requested to release all retiral benefits with interests to compensate the loss he had suffered.

6. By a letter dated March 1, 2013 the petitioner was informed that since some other irregularities alleged to have been committed by him had in the meantime surfaced a fresh composite charge-sheet incorporating the latest discovery was in contemplation and in view of the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, he was not entitled to payment of retiral dues except his own contribution to the provident funds. However, in terms of Regulation 46 of the United Bank of India (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995 (Pension Regulations, for short) a provisional pension would be paid to him.

7. According to the petitioner, Regulation 20 (3)(iii) of the Service Regulations was irrational, arbitrary and unreasonable inasmuch as it allows disciplinary proceedings for indefinite period even after the superannuation of an employee and it further allows a retired employee to be treated as if he was in service.

8. The petitioner has alleged that the Service Regulations are not statutory Regulations. The petitioner is also aggrie