Regulation.19(2) and S.63 empower the continuation of disciplinary proceedings after an employee's retirement, serving the purpose of ensuring accountability and discipline.

K. Sukumaran, J.

1. The petitioner was an employee of the State Bank of Travancore. He climbed up the official ladder and came to the rung of Manager, A Grade Officer. On 10-12-1980, the 1st respondent Bank issued Ext.P2 memo intimating the petitioner about the disciplinary action proposed by it. The articles of charge and statement of imputations of misconduct were communicated to him, and he was asked to put forward his defence. The explanation dated 31-1-1981 submitted by the petitioner did not appear to be satisfactory to the Management. It therefore decided upon an enquiry against the petitioner. That decision was communicated to the petitioner under Ext.P3 dated 28-9-1981. The petitioner appears to have written a letter on 15-10-1981, apparently in relation to his retirement from service. The letter has not been produced in the original petition and its contents not even indicated in the statement of facts. The reply of the 1st respondent to that letter is Ext.P1 dated 27-11-1981. Para.2 and 3 of the letter which are relevant for the consideration of the contentions raised in the original petition, read:

"2. It has been decided in terms of Regulation.19(1) of the State Bank of Travancore (Officers) Service Regulations, 1979, not to grant extension of service and, accordingly, you will stand retired from the service of the Bank at the close of 30th Nov. 1981.

3. As disciplinary proceedings are pending against you, the said proceedings will be continued and concluded and you shall be deemed to be in service only for the purpose of the continuation and conclusion of the said proceedings in terms of Regulation of 19(2) of State Bank of Travancore (Officers) Service Regulations, 1979"

2. The disciplinary proceedings were pursued thereafter. The petitioner raised a preliminary objection before the 3rd respondent - Enquiry Officer. The very legality of the continuance of the proceedings against the petitioner was challenged on the ground that the petitioner had already ceased to be an employee. The Enquiry Officer took the view that in terms of the Service Rules the petitioner continued to be in service for the purpose of the inquiry. The enquiry was thereafter adjourned to 21-1-1982. It was at this juncture that the petitioner approached this Court questioning the correctness of the view taken by the Enquiry Officer and seeking to stop the enquiry proceedings against him. Though the counter affidavits were filed in 1982 itself that of the 1st respondent on 13-10-1982, and that of the 2nd respondent on 1-12-1982, the case drifted all along. On 25-6-1986, CMP No. 14473 of 1986 was filed by the petitioner producing therewith Ext. P6 containing the relevant extract of Regulation.19 dealing with the age of retirement.

3. Regulation.19(2) which is material reads as follows:

"In case disciplinary proceedings under the relevant regulations of service has been initiated against an officer before he ceases Co be in the Bank's service by the operation of, or by virtue of any of the said regulations or the provisions of these regulations the disciplinary proceedings may, at the discretion of the Managing Director, be continued and concluded by the authority by which the proceedings were initiated in the manner provided for in the said regulations as if the officer continues to be in service, so however, that he shall be deemed to be in service only for the purpose of the continuance and conclusion of such proceedings

Explanation

An officer will retire on the last day of the month in which he completes the stipulated service or age of retirement."

In the present case, there is no dispute that the last day of the month in which the petitioner completed the stipulated service or age of retirement is 30-11-1981 The disciplinary proceedings had been initiated long before that date, on 10-12-1980. Regulation.19 [2] squarely applies in the present case, as disciplinary proceedings had been initiated against the petitioner before he ceased to be i