The central legal point established in the judgment is the limitation on initiating disciplinary proceedings against pensioners for events more than 4 years old, as well as the significance of the interplay between the Pension Regulations and the guidance provided by relevant Supreme Court decisions.

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.

1. Whether the learned Single Judge has correctly opined that the issue raised in the five writ petitions filed by the five respondents in the above captioned five appeals was covered in their favour as per the decision reported as (1996) 9 SCC 395 State of UP & Anr. v. Shri Krishna Pandey and that the decision reported as 2015 Lab. I.C. 685 State of West Bengal v. Pronab Chakraborty was not applicable, is the question which arises for consideration before this Bench in the five captioned appeals.

2. The respondent in each appeal was an employee of the appellant bank. Nand Lal Phatnani the respondent in LPA No. 673/2015 superannuated on May 31, 2010. Harvinder Pal Singh the respondent in LPA No. 674/2015 superannuated on July 31, 2011. Paramjit Singh Anand the respondent in LPA No. 675/2015 superannuated on July 30, 2013. Parminder Singh the respondent in LPA No. 676/2015 superannuated on August 27, 2010 and Harpreet Singh Makker the respondent in LPA No. 677/2015 superannuated on November 30, 2012. All of them were charge-sheeted under charge-sheets dated December 26, 2014. Whereas Nand Lal Phatnani, Harpreet Singh Makker and Paramjit Singh Anand were charge-sheeted for the same acts of omission and commission, being members of a loan committee, pertaining to enhanced limits of a bank guarantee furnished by the bank at the instance of M/s. Zoom Developers Pvt. Ltd. Harvinder Pal Singh and Parminder Singh were charge-sheeted concerning the enhancement of the said bank guarantee in their capacity as a Branch Manager and the General Manager. Therefore, it is apparent that allegations in the charge-sheet against Nand Lal Phatnani, Harpreet Singh Makker and Paramjit Singh Anand were the same concerning acts of omission and commission and against Harvinder Pal Singh and Parminder Singh were near identical, bringing out the acts of omission and commission by the two. Concededly the common ground of all parties i.e. the appellant bank and the respondents in the five appeals is that the acts of omission and commission complained of, preceded four years from the date when the charge-sheet was issued.

3. The issue turned on the power of the competent authority to issue the charge-sheet in light of the Punjab & Sind Bank (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations). As per the five charge-sheeted employees, no departmental proceedings could be instituted against them because the events in respect of which they were charge-sheeted took place more than 4 years before the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings in view of Regulation 48(2) of the Regulations, which reads : No departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the employee was in service, shall be instituted in respect of an event which took place more than four years before such institution. As per the appellant the power to initiate disciplinary proceedings by issuing a charge-sheet with respect to events which took place more than 4 years before initiation of the disciplinary proceedings had to be found in Regulation 43 of the Regulations.

4. The arsenal for the debate between the parties were the two respective decisions noted by us in paragraph one above.

5. Holding in favour of the respondents, the learned Single Judge has held that Regulation 43 and 45 no doubt empower the management of the bank to withhold or withdraw pension for a grave misconduct but at the same time Regulation 48 also contemplated withholding of withdrawal of pension, whether permanently or for a specified period. The argument by the bank that Regulation 48 would come into play if the bank intended to recover a pecuniary loss to it has been rejected by the learned Single Judge, and the reasoning is to be found in paragraph 9 of the impugned decision which reads as under:-

“9. A perusal of Regulations 43 and 45, no doubt, would reveal that they are related to withholding or withdrawal of pension for a grave misconduct. In other words