Ratios:
a. In the absence of an enabling provision in the service rules, disciplinary proceeding cannot be continued against an employee after his retirement.
b. Employer can initiate surcharge proceeding against an employee even after his retirement.

N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J

1. The Writ Appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge in disposing of the Writ Petition filed by the appellant herein with a direction to the Respondent-Bank to retain a sum of Rs.2,69,938/- towards interest in respect of the alleged loss that occasioned to the Bank. In the Writ Petition the appellant prayed to quash the portion of the order of the respondent dated 33. 2005 reserving its right to continue the disciplinary proceedings after permitting the appellant to retire from his service.

2. The case of the appellant is that the appellant joined the service of the respondent-Bank in the year 1963 as a Clerk and he was promoted as Supervisor and further promoted as Assistant Manager. The appellant worked in the Branches of Tiruthatni, Kunrathur and Porur and he retired from service as on 33. 2005 after his 42 years of service. While the appellant was in service, a charge was framed on 27. 2004 alleging that he failed to discharge his duties as tow loans became overdue and failed to collect the loan amounts.

3. The appellant filed his explanation on 22. 2005 and stated that in respect of one loan he initiated action and the borrower filed Writ Petition and Suit and prevented from taking action for recovery proceedings and in respect of other loan an arbitration claim was filed and the same was decreed. It was also stated that these loans were sanctioned after getting full securities and as such the amounts are realizable. After the receipt of the explanation no order was passed by the respondent. On 23. 2005 just seven days prior to his retirement further charges were alleged stating that the acceptance of payment of Rs.1,83,669/- by a borrower by name P. Vaidyalingam on 26. 2002 under the One Time Settlement scheme then in force. The appellant immediately sent a proposal to the Head Office on 26. 2002 itself requesting the approval of the Head Office to extend the benefit of the scheme to the borrower. The Head Office did not act immediately on his proposal. In the mean time, the borrower made a further payment of Rs.5,68,100/- under One Time Settlement scheme and closed the loan account and altogether he paid a total sum of Rs.7,51,769/- against the loan amount of Rs.5,00,000/- received by him. Therefore, no financial loss had been caused to the Bank. The appellant further stated that the Bank made some technical objections, which is not legally sustainable and refused to extend the benefits to the borrower. The borrower filed a Writ Petition No.40576/02 challenging the communication in this regard dated 19. 2002 of the Bank and the said Writ Petition is pending. The Bank has to file a counter. The borrower was found to be a chronic defaulter and he failed to repay the loan even after due date. Hence, the proposal of One Time Settlement was the only way to collect the amount from him. The appellant was permitted to retire from service from 33. 2005 without prejudice to the disciplinary proceedings, by order dated 33. 2005 and he is not paid the retirement benefits. The said order is challenged before the learned Single Judge contending that Rule 149 of Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules 1988 or in the bye-laws of the Bank no power is vested to continue the disciplinary proceedings after retiring an employee of Co-operative Society and also on the ground of delay in-issuing the charge memo on 27. 2004 for the loan sanctioned in the year 1996 that is after a delay of 8 years and the Bank also not sustained any loss by proposing One Time Settlement and the Heard Office failed to accept the Bank’s proposal for which the appellant cannot be blamed.

4. Therespondent-Bank filed a counter affidavit stating that the service conditions of the respondent-Bank is covered by bye-laws and necessary amendment to service conditions were made enabling the Bank to continue the disciplinary proceedings even after permitting to retire an employee if the right to continue disci