JUDGMENT

V. Kameswar Rao, J. - Vide this common order I shall dispose of the three writ petitions being W.P.(C) 2846/2017, W.P.(C) 3910/2017 and W.P.(C) 3915/2017.

2. The common respondent in all three writ petitions is a public sector bank which falls within the definition of the State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and under the administrative control of the Ministry of Finance.

3. The short issue that arises for consideration in all these petitions is whether departmental proceedings can be initiated against an employee who has retired from the services of the respondent bank when it is in respect of an event which took place more than four years before the institution of the proceedings, in view of Punjab and Sind Bank (Employees) Pension Regulations,1995 ('Pension Regulations', for short).

W.P.(C) 2846/2017

4. The petitioner herein joined the services of the respondent Bank on November 07, 1975 as a probationary officer and retired from its services as a Deputy General Manager posted at Chandigarh on October 31, 2012 on attaining superannuation.

5. It is stated by petitioner that on October 12, 2015, respondent Bank issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner asking for his comments on alleged commission of irregularities by him while sanctioning the Cash Credit [Hypothecation] Facilities of Rs. 3.50 Crores and Rs. 2.50 Crores in respect of M/s Bankey Bihari Trading Co. and M/s Rock Hudson Clothing (India) respectively, in his capacity of officiating Deputy General Manager, as the said borrowers defaulted and the lending became sticky leading to the accounts being declared as NPA/fraud for which an FIR was registered.

6. As the show-cause notice dated October 12, 2015, was unserved on the petitioner, it was sent again on April 15, 2016, which was received by the petitioner on April 30, 2016. The petitioner thereafter duly submitted his comments, on May 08, 2016, stating that the said CC facilities were sanctioned in favour of the said two parties on February 13, 2012 and March 03, 2012 respectively after following due procedure, on the recommendations of the loan committee at the branch/zonal office of the respondent bank and was a bonafide commercial decision taken in the normal course of business.

7. It is the case of the petitioner that without considering the comments filed by the petitioner on May 08, 2016, the respondent Bank issued the impugned charge sheet vide memorandum dated August 22, 2016 in terms of Regulation 43 & 45 read with Regulation 48 of the Pension Regulations. The petitioner was thereby asked to submit his statement of defence to the impugned charge sheet.

8. It is stated by the petitioner that even the charge sheet filed by the CBI after detailed investigation was only against the borrower and no evidence whatsoever of any impropriety was observed against the petitioner. It is stated, the CBI observed procedural lapses against the branch manager of the respondent Bank and not against the petitioner.

9. The petitioner's request for inspecting certain documents for filing his statement of defence was allowed by the respondent Bank on October 15, 2016 and the petitioner inspected certain documents at the Delhi Office of the respondent Bank on October 22, 2016. However, according to the petitioner certain documents were not available/provided and a request on behalf of the petitioner for providing those documents was also rejected by the respondent Bank vide communication dated January 16, 2017.

10. However, he has filed this present petition challenging the impugned charge sheet being in violation of the Pension Regulations.

11. I may note here that initially the respondent Bank, in all the three writ petitions took a stand that it was considering formulating a policy relatable to the issue which falls for consideration as recorded in the common order dated September 13, 2017 and subsequently