Valmiki J. Mehta, J. (Oral)

1. This case is listed today as 15.11.2013 was declared a holiday.

2. By this writ petition, petitioner impugns the departmental proceedings commenced against him pursuant to the charge-sheet dated 15.7.2009. Petitioner pleads and contends that since the charge-sheet dated 15.7.2009 was being issued much after the petitioner took voluntary retirement on 24.7.2008, no departmental proceedings can be initiated after his voluntary retirement in terms of the impugned charge-sheet. It is also contended and pleaded that merely because a show cause notice was issued on 14.7.2008 cannot mean that departmental proceedings have been initiated prior to the retirement because departmental proceedings commenced only on issuing of the charge-sheet dated 15.7.2009 and not on issuing of the show cause notice dated 14.7.2008 as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of UCO Bank & Anr. Vs. Rajinder Lal Capoor (2008) 5 SCC 257.

3. Counsel appearing for respondent no.1-bank contends that there is power to withhold the retirement benefits including pension by the bank once departmental proceedings have commenced in terms of a show cause notice dated 14.7.2008 and for which reliance is placed upon the Regulations 46 and 48 of the Pension Regulations 1995 of the respondent no.1-bank.

4. I have recently had an occasion to consider the issue, which arises in the present case, as to whether departmental proceedings commence only on issuing of the charge-sheet or even can be said to have commenced on issuance of a show cause notice in the case of D.B.Madan Vs. Punjab National Bank & Ors. in W.P.(C) 7481/2008 dated 29.10.2013. Paras 4 to 8 of the said judgment are relevant and they read as under:-

2. The following admitted facts in the present case be noted:

(i) The show cause notice was issued to petitioner on 30.05.2007 asking the petitioner to show cause as to why disciplinary proceedings should not be initiated.

(ii) Petitioner replied to the show cause notice in terms of the reply dated 12.06.2007.

(iii) Petitioner superannuated subsequently on 30.06.2007.

(iv) Before superannuation of the petitioner, the respondent no.1-bank vide its order dated 28.06.2007 passed an order of continuation of the disciplinary proceedings initiated pursuant to the show cause notice dated 30.05.2007. By the same order the retire mental benefits to the petitioner were directed not to be paid.

(v) The charge sheet was issued to the petitioner on 06.10.2008 i.e., after his retirement.

3. I may note that there were certain other legal proceedings because petitioner had impugned the show cause notice dated 30.05.2007 by filing a writ petition in this Court being W.P (C) No. 1290/2008, and which was disposed of by the order dated 15.09.2008 directing the bank to take a conscious decision for issuing of the charge sheet, and the impugned chargesheet was thereafter issued, however, the issue in the present case only turns upon entitlement of the bank to commence the disciplinary proceedings after the superannuation of an employee. Related to this issue is the issue that when does the disciplinary proceedings commence i.e whether on issuance of a show cause notice proposing disciplinary proceedings or only on issuing of the chargesheet.

4. The issue in the present case is squarely covered as per the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of UCO Bank and Anr. Vs. Rajinder Lal Capoor (2008) 5 SCC 257. This judgment holds that Regulation 20 (3) (ii) of the 1979 Regulations of the bank which provides for a deeming provision of commencement of the departmental inquiry on issuing of a show cause notice is limited to the type of proceedings envisaged under sub-Rule (1) of Regulation 20 of 1979 Regulations. What is thus held is that the benefits of Regulation 20 (3) (ii) of deemed commencement of disciplinary proceedings on issuing of a show cause notice proposing disciplinary proceedings does not enure for the be