Charge sheets for disciplinary actions against pensioners must be initiated within four years of the misconduct; otherwise, they are invalid.

JUDGMENT

V. Kameswar Rao, J. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:

"In view of the facts and circumstances narrated above, it is respectfully submitted that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to;-

a. issue the appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing the chargesheet bearing Ref.No.082/HRD: IRD/DA-3 dated 03/02/2018, issued by the respondent bank upon the petitioner which is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE-P-6.

b. award costs in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent; and

c. grant any other and further order or direction in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent, as may be deemed fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of this case by this Hon'ble Court."

2. In substance the challenge is to the charge sheet dated February 03, 2018 issued to the petitioner under the provisions of Regulations 43 & 45 of Syndicate Bank (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995 read with Regulation 6 of Syndicate Bank Officer Employees (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976 (hereinafter as, Regulations of 1995 and Regulations of 1976 respectively).

3. Some of the facts as noted from the petition are that the petitioner joined the respondent/Syndicate Bank (`Bank', for short) in the post of Clerical cadre on December 20, 1982. He was promoted hierarchically from time to time. On June 7, 2012, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Senior Branch Manager at Bisawar Branch and on May 02, 2014, he was relieved from Bisawar Branch to Regional Inspectorate at Delhi as Senior Manager (Inspection). On December 19, 2015, he retired from the bank by opting for Voluntary Retirement Scheme of the Bank.

4. On November 21, 2017, he received a show cause notice dated November 14, 2017, from the Bank. On November 26, 2017, the petitioner sought extension of time to file reply. On December 11, 2017, the petitioner demanded list of documents and documents relied upon by the bank in order to submit the specific reply to the show cause notice. It is the case of the petitioner that on February 10, 2018, he received an incomplete charge sheet dated February 03, 2018, without annexing list of documents, documents and list of witnesses relied upon by the bank. Finally, on March 07, 2018, the Petitioner received the documents relied by the Bank.

5. On March 17, 2018, petitioner received a letter from the bank informing the petitioner on the appointment of the Inquiry Officer. The Inquiry Officer held a preliminary inquiry on September 04, 2018. This writ petition was filed on August 05, 2019. When the matter was listed on August 13, 2019, this Court had directed the Bank to stay the enquiry proceedings against the petitioner.

6. The case of the petitioner as contended by his counsel Mr. Ravi Bassi, that the petitioner having retired from the services of the Bank in the year 2015, and the charges relate back to 4 years prior to the issuance of the charge sheet, the same is impermissible in view of the Regulation 48 of the Regulations of 1995. In this regard, he has drawn my attention to Regulation 48 of the Regulations of 1995.

7. He also submits that the periodicity of Risk Based Internal Audit is 18 months(maximum) and the Bank had conducted more than three Risk Based Internal Audits during the period from July 20, 2012 to March 07, 2018. This audit/inspection scrutinizes any pre sanction appraisal, documentation and disbursement of loans/advances and post sanction follow