The main legal point established in the judgment is that departmental proceedings can be initiated and continued even after retirement of an employee, and the entitlement to withhold and forfeit terminal benefits can be decided through departmental proceedings.

Valmiki J. Mehta, J.

Oral:

1. By this writ petition, the petitioner, who was an employee of the respondent No.1-bank, impugns the chargesheet dated 2.8.2012 basically on the ground that same could not have been issued after the petitioner had superannuated from service.

2. I have had an occasion to consider this aspect in detail in the case of Prof. Marmar Mukhopadhyay Vs. Union of India and Ors. in W.P.(C) No2566/2007 decided on 18.7.2013. In this judgment, I have given the reasons as to why enquiry proceedings can be initiated and continued even after superannuation of an employee. The first reason which I have given is that every entity has a right to withhold the amount lying in its pocket, and even appropriate the same, with respect to its claim towards an employee who claims amounts from it/organization/employer. It has also been held by the Supreme Court in its judgments in the cases of State of Maharashtra Vs. M.H.Mazumdar (1988) 2 SCC 52 and State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Brahm Datt Sharma & Anr. (1987) 2 SCC 179 that there is no bar in initiating and continuing the disciplinary proceedings after superannuation of an employee. The following are the relevant paragraphs of the judgment in the case of Prof. Marmar Mukhopadhyay (supra) and the same read as under:-

“10. On behalf of respondent no.2-UGC, the following judgments have been relied upon:-

(i) State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Brahm Datt Sharma & Anr. (1987) 2 SCC 179 and

(ii) State of Maharashtra Vs. M.H.Mazumdar (1988) 2 SCC 52

11. In the case of M.H.Mazumdar (supra) reliance is placed upon paras 4 to 6 of the judgment and which read as under:-

4. There is no dispute that the respondent had retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on September 1, 1977 and charges were served on him on October 16, 1978 after about a year of his retirement. Undisputably the proceedings against the respondent were initiated after the respondent ceased to be in service of the State Government. The proceedings culminated into an order of the State Government reducing the respondent's pension by 50 per cent. The question is whether the State Government was competent to take action against the respondent by reducing his pension. Conditions for grant of pension to a Government servant of the State of Maharashtra are regulated by the Bombay Civil Services Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). Rule 184 provides for grant of pension admissible under the rules to Government servant who is borne on its establishment. Rules 188 and 189 relevant for our purpose are as under:

188. Government may make such reduction as it may think fit in the amount of the pension of a Government servant whose service has not been thoroughly satisfactory.

189. Good conduct is an implied condition of every grant of pension. Government may withhold or withdraw a pension or any part of it if the pensioner be convicted of serious crime or be found to have been guilty of grave misconduct either during or after the completion of his service, provided that before any order to this effect is issued, the procedure referred to in Note I to Rule 33 of Bombay Civil Services Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules shall be followed.

5. The aforesaid two Rules empower Government to reduce or withdraw a pension. Rule 189 contemplates withholding or withdrawing of a pension or any part of it if the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct while he was in service or after the completion of his service. Grant of pension and its continuance to a Government servant depend upon the good conduct of the Government servant. Rendering satisfactory service maintaining good conduct is a necessary condition for the grant and continuance of pension. Rule 189 expressly confers power on the Government to withhold or withdraw any part of the pension payable to a Government servant for misconduct which he may have committed while in service. This Rule further provides that before any order reducing or withdrawing any