IMPORTANT POINT
Disciplinary proceedings against a bank officer must be initiated with a formal charge-sheet before superannuation; otherwise, they are deemed illegal.

ORDER :

Question involved:

1. The short question involved in the writ petition is, as to when a disciplinary proceeding is said to be initiated against the Bank officer in terms of Regulation 45(3) of the Regional Rural Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations, 2010 (for short ‘the Regulations of 2010’) whether it is on formal framing and issuance of charge-sheet to the delinquent Bank officer seeking his explanation to the allegations made in the charge-sheet or mere decision by the Bank to initiate disciplinary proceeding would be sufficient for initiation of disciplinary proceeding in terms of the aforesaid Rule?

2. The aforesaid question arises in the following factual backdrop:

Relevant facts in brief:

3. The petitioner herein was subjected to notice/order dated 29-5-2014 (Annexure P-1) informing him by the respondent Bank that the Bank has taken decision to initiate disciplinary proceeding against him as per Regulation 45 of the Regulations of 2010 and before any formal charge-sheet is drawn and issued instituting disciplinary proceeding against him, he was allowed by the respondent Bank to superannuate on 31-5-2014. Thereafter, on 26-7-2014, formal charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner vide Annexure P-4 informing him that the Bank has taken decision to institute disciplinary proceeding and disciplinary proceeding is being commenced and on 17-8-2015, the respondent Bank has taken final decision to initiate departmental enquiry against him.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that since charge-sheet was issued on 26-7-2014/17-8-2015 and the petitioner was allowed to superannuate on 31-5-2014, and further, as per the settled law since departmental proceeding has not been initiated prior to his superannuation in terms of Regulation 45(3) of the Regulations of 2010, therefore, issuance of charge-sheet on 26-7-2014/17-8-2015 is without jurisdiction and without authority of law. It is the further case of the petitioner that the applicable rule does not permit the Bank to initiate departmental enquiry after superannuation and decision to initiate departmental enquiry by the Bank is quite different from initiation of departmental enquiry, as departmental enquiry has to be initiated after taking decision to hold departmental enquiry and thereafter, formal charge-sheet has to be drawn, issued and served to the delinquent employee, which in the instant case, admittedly and undisputedly, only decision has been taken on 26-7-2014/ 17-8-2015 to hold disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner. It is not the case of the petitioner that formal charge-sheet was drawn and issued before superannuation, though not served to him. Therefore, charge-sheet issued vide Annexure P-4 and all the subsequent proceedings deserve to be quashed and the respondent be directed to pay all the retiral benefits to the petitioner along with 18% interest.

5. Return has been filed by the respondent Bank stating inter alia that decision to initiate departmental enquiry has already been taken and informed to the petitioner on 29-5-2014 vide Annexure P-1 and misconduct committed by the petitioner has also been incorporated in Annexure P-1. It has further been stated in the reply that no particular form of charge-sheet is prescribed in the Regulations of 2010 and therefore it will be deemed that charge-sheet has already been issued against the petitioner on the date of superannuation on 31-5-2014. Therefore, no formal charge-sheet can be found in the format prior to issuance of charge-sheet on 26-7-2014 and prior to formal initiation of departmental enquiry on 17-8-2015. As such, it is a case where Regulation 45(3) of the Regulations of 2010 squarely attracts and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. No rejoinder has been filed on behalf of the petitioner.

Submissions on behalf of the petitioner:

6. Mr. Ajay Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that though the alleged decision to initiate departmental enquiry against