The Pension Regulations, 2018, could be applied retrospectively to the petitioner's case as they did not create new offenses but authorized the bank to take action based on past conduct.

JUDGMENT :

PARTHA SARATHI CHATTERJEE, J.

1. The conundrum posited in this writ petition is whether the disciplinary proceeding contemplated against the writ petitioner after he demitted his office is tenable or not.

2. For better appreciation of the issue of law emerging out of obtaining factual matrix, the necessitous facts required to be adumbrated are that the petitioner joined as Junior Clerk-cum- Cashier on 23.11.1983 in Howrah Gramin Bank. In 1987, he was promoted to the post of Field Supervisor (subsequently, redesignated as Scale-I Officer) and in 2000, he was promoted to Scale-II Officer. In 2012 he was posted at Batore Branch. The petitioner retired from his service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.12.2016.

3. Howrah Gramin Bank, Burdwan Gramin Bank and Mayurakshi Gramin Bank were constituted under the Regional Rural Bank Act, 1976 and by virtue of a notification vide. dated 26.2.2007, issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs (Banking Divn.), Government of India, the aforesaid three banks were amalgamated to a single bank, namely, PBGB and it started functioning under the sponsorship of UCO Bank and under the guidance and control of the Government of India and National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (in short, NABARD) and the service conditions of the Officers and employees of the PBGB were governed by the Paschim Banga Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations, 2010 (in short, the Service Regulations).

4. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 30 read with Sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976, the Board of Directors of PBGB after having consultation with UCO Bank, National Bank and Government of India, promulgated Paschim Banga Gramin Bank (Employees) Pension Regulations, 2018 (in short, the Pension Regulations) w.e.f. 15th November, 2018. The petitioner opted for being governed by the Pension Regulations and accordingly, his pension was released but his commuted value of pension amounting to Rs. 10,09,062 was withheld.

5. On 03.06.2019, i.e. after almost two and half years, the Chairman, PBGB issued a show-cause notice against the petitioner seeking explanation as to why suitable action would not be taken against him. The petitioner replied to that show cause notice on 29.6.2019 and on 7.3.2020, he was slapped with a charge-sheet vide dated 7.3.2020 in which four charges were framed against the petitioner basing upon 14(fourteen) numbers of statements of allegation.

6. The petitioner submitted his detailed reply to the chargesheet and under a memorandum and a notification, both dated 11.11.2020, the Enquiry Officer and the Presenting Officer were appointed.

7. In such chronological events, since the authority concerned has issued a charge sheet in contemplation of a disciplinary proceeding initiated against the petitioner after his retirement, questioning the tenability of the charge sheet dated 7th March, 2022, this writ petition has been preferred. Being so directed, the respondents filed affidavit-in-opposition to the writ petition but the petitioner has not filed his response to that affidavit-in-opposition.

8. Mr. Saha Roy, learned advocate appearing for the writ petitioner argued the matter on behalf of the writ petitioner. Arguments advanced by Mr. Saha Roy, as crystallized, are that the Pension Regulations came into force on the date of their publication in the official gazette i.e. on 15th November, 2018. The petitioner retired on 31.12.2016 and on 7.3.2020, a charge sheet was issued against the petitioner taking recourse to the Regulation nos. 43 of 46 of the Pension Regulations on allegation of violation of Regulation nos. 18 and 20 of the Service Regulations. According to Mr. Saha Roy, Pension Regulations cannot be invoked to contemplate a disciplining proceeding against the petitioner who retired prior to the date the Pension Regulations came into effect.

9. The second plank of submission of Mr. Saha Roy is the