IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established is that the initiation of a departmental proceeding after an employee's superannuation, without issuing a memorandum of charge, is without jurisdiction and bias, rendering any subsequent dismissal order illegal.

JUDGMENT :

Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

I.A. No.2103 of 2019

1. This interlocutory application has been filed for substitution of the respondent-writ petitioner, namely, Girjesh Kumar Sinha, who had died leaving behind his legal heirs whose details are furnished in paragraph 5 of the instant interlocutory application.

2. Considering the aforesaid fact, the instant interlocutory application stands allowed.

3. Office is directed to make necessary correction in the cause title of the instant letters patent appeal.

4. I.A. No.2103 of 2019 stands disposed of.

L.P.A. No. 518 of 2018

5. With the consent of the learned senior counsel for the appellant, the instant appeal has been taken up for hearing on its merit.

6. The instant appeal is under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the order/judgment dated 25th July, 2018 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.2565 of 2016, whereby and whereunder the order of dismissal dated 12th April, 2017 has been quashed by allowing the writ petition with a direction for disbursement of post retiral benefit within the stipulated period of four weeks.

7. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the writ petition required to be enumerated, reads as under:

It is the case of the writ-petitioner that he was appointed in Jharkhand Gramin Bank on 17th March, 1981. While in service he was issued a Memorandum Calling For Explanation on 20th November, 2015 on the allegation that during his service tenure he has sanctioned and disbursed 34 KCC loans in favour of the borrowers who have been found non-existent. He has submitted his explanation on 07th December, 2015, however, another Memorandum Calling For Explanation was issued to him on 12th January, 2016 on the allegation that on further enquiry serious irregularities in sanction and disbursal of KCC loans have been detected. This was replied by the petitioner on 19th January, 2016 but before that another Memorandum Calling For Explanation was issued to him on 18th January, 2016. By another letter dated 19th January, 2016 the petitioner was informed that under Regulations 45(3) and 45(4) of Jharkhand Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Regulations, 2010 his normal retiral benefits such as leave encashment and gratuity shall be withheld till completion of disciplinary proceedings; a disciplinary proceeding was contemplated by that time. Before he superannuated from service on 31st January, 2016 he has responded to the Memorandum Calling For Explanation through his letter dated 27th January, 2016.

8. When, the writ-petitioner has been dismissed from service vide order dated 12th April, 2017, has approached this Court by filing a writ petition being W.P.(S) No.2565 of 2016 challenging the order dated 19th January, 2016 as also questioning legality of the departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner and the order of dismissal dated 12th April, 2017 by which the writ-petitioner was dismissed from service. The deceased employee, namely, Girjesh Kumar Sinha had taken the ground that the departmental proceeding was initiated after his superannuation i.e., after 31st January, 2016. Such ground has been taken on the basis of the fact that the memorandum of charge was issued on 6th May, 2016. The learned Single Judge has accepted the aforesaid submission and by coming to the conclusive finding that the departmental proceeding will be said to be initiated on the day, when the memorandum of charge will be issued and since the day when the memorandum of charge was issued against the deceased writ-petitioner i.e., on 6th May, 2016 but prior to that he had already been superannuated from service w.e.f. 31st January, 2016, as such, the entire departmental proceeding has been rendered to be unsustainable and basis upon which the dismissal order since was passed, the same has also been held to be illegal, which is the subject matter of the instant appeal.

9. Mr. A. Allam, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant assis