IMPORTANT POINT : : (1) When a public servant reaches age of superannuation and waits to have exit from his service, initiation of disciplinary proceedings concerning old events generally would be unreasonable and unfair, more so when there is no justified reason for initiating such enquiry at such belated stage.
(2) Power of judicial review discharged by a Constitutional Court under Articles 226, 32 and 136 of Constitution is distinct from appellate power exercised by a departmental/ appellate authority.

ORDER

Javed Iqbal Wani, J. – In the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks indulgence of this Court in granting the following reliefs:-

“I. By a writ of Certiorari

The disciplinary proceedings against the petitioners may be declared null and void and the impugned penalty imposed vide order dated 13.10.2017 contained in Annexure –F to the writ petition may be quashed. As a corollary, the order of Appellate Authority rejecting the appeal vide order dated 28.03.2018 forming Annexure-G to the writ petition may also be quashed in the interest of justice.

II. By a writ of Mandamus

(a) The respondents be directed to determine all retirement benefits including gratuity, leave salary without any deduction corresponding the grade and status of Regional Manager (MMGS III) held by the petitioner at the time of retirement untrammeled by the impugned order and disburse differential payment along with interest @ 18 % from the date of accrual till its final realization.

(b) The respondents be further directed to pay exemplary costs and damages for the loss and agony suffered by the petitioner as a result of malicious action of the respondents.”

2. The petitioner in the instant petition fundamentally alleges that his retirement benefits have been reduced in consequence of a disciplinary enquiry conducted after his retirement.

3. The factual matrix propounded by the petitioner would reveal that a charge-sheet came to be framed by the respondents against the petitioner and served upon him on 22.03.2017, when he had completed 60 years of age of superannuation in the service of the respondent-Bank as on 18.03.2017, notwithstanding the assumed service upto the end of calendar month. The charge-sheet is stated to have been responded to by the petitioner on 14.04.2017 and had been followed by a communication dated 07.06.2017, of the respondent-Bank nominating an inquiry officer for holding an inquiry against the petitioner.

4. A notice dated 07.06.2017 is stated to have been issued by the respondents proposing major penalty contemplated under Regulation 39 (1) (b) (ii) of the Ellaquai Dehati Bank (Officers & Employees) Service Regulation, 2010 (hereinafter for short ‘the Regulation of 2010’) for reduction of grade having been confirmed by order dated 13.10.2017 (for brevity ‘impugned order’) passed by the disciplinary authority.

5. An appeal is stated to have been filed by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 13.10.2017, before the appellate authority having been dismissed vide order dated 28.03.2018.

6. The petitioner in the instant petition has challenged the impugned order of imposition of penalty dated 13.10.2017 as also the impugned order dated 28.03.2018, whereby the appeal of the petitioner has been rejected.

7. The instant petition has been maintained, inter alia, on the grounds that in terms of the Regulation of 2010, the age of retirement under Regulation (11) is 60 years, which had been attained by the petitioner before the communication of the charge sheet dated 23.03.2017, as such, holding of an enquiry against him being a retired officer is contended to be impermissible more so, when he had been permitted to retire without any rider.

8. It is also urged that the Regulation (45) of the Regulation of 2010 which provide for the holding of an enquiry against the suspended employee of the Bank beyond the age of superannuation has not been applicable to the case of the petitioner, as the relationship of the petitioner and the respondent-Bank as employee and employer had come to an end on the date of initiation of enquiry/ framing of charge sheet.

9. It is being next urged that the punishment has been imposed upon the petitioner retrospectively by relegating him to the pay scale, which was drawn by him in the year 2005 at the time of entry in the initial scale-(II), whe