Disciplinary proceedings cannot be initiated against a retired employee for events older than four years post-retirement, abiding by Regulation 48(2).

Judgment :

Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.

2. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:

The Petitioner therefore prays that your Lordships would be graciously pleased to admit this writ application, call for the records and after hearing the parties allow the same with cost and issue a writ/writs in the nature of certiorari/mandamus by quashing the disciplinary proceeding under Annexure-1 series as the same is barred under Regulation 48(2) of 1995 Regulation under Annexure-5 and without jurisdiction in view of the settled principles of law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India;

And pass any other order or orders as this Hon’ble court deems fit and proper;

And for this act of kindness, the Petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that Petitioner while continuing as Chief Concurrent Auditor under the Opp. Party-Bank, he retired from his services on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.10.2015. However, much after his retirement, the Bank initiated the impugned proceeding vide Memorandum dt. 29.02.2020 under Annexure-1, in terms provision contained under Punjab National Bank Officer Employees’ (Disciplinary and Appeal) Regulations, 1977.

3.1. Such proceeding initiated vide the impugned Memorandum dtd. 29.02.2020 was forwarded to the Petitioner vide letter dt. 05.03.2020 under Annexure-2. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that on being served with the charges in the impugned proceeding dt. 29.02.2020, Petitioner made his reply on 05.05.2020 under Annexure-3 inter alia taking a specific ground that in view of the provisions contained under Regulation 48(2) of the Punjab National Bank (Employees) Pension Regulation, 1995 (in short, “Regulation 1995) under Annexure-5, the proceeding initiated against the Petitioner vide Charge Memo dt. 29.02.2020 under Annexure-1 is not maintainable. Regulation 48(2) of the 1995 Regulation reads as follows:

“No departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the employee was in service, shall be instituted in respect of an event which took place more than four years before such institution.

Provided that the disciplinary proceedings so instituted shall be in accordance with the procedure applicable to disciplinary proceedings in relation to the employee during the period of his service.”

3.2. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that Petitioner since retired from his services on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.10.2015 and the proceeding was initiated on 29.02.2020 in respect of the incidents for the period from 17.05.2012 to 30.06.2015, in view of the provision contained under Regulation 48(2) of the 1995 Regulation, the Proceeding is not maintainable. It is also contended that since the allegation in the Charge memo relates to the period 17.05.2012 to 30.06.2015 and during the continuance of the Petitioner in the Mumbai branch from 28.10.2011 to 31.10.2015, the proceeding so initiated under Annexure-1 vide Memorandum dt. 29.02.2020 is not maintainable and required to be quashed. It is also contended that this Court while issuing notice of the matter vide order dt. 08.03.2021, restrained the Opp. Party-Bank from passing the final order without the leave of this Court.

3.3. While relying on the provisions contained under Regulation 48(2) of the 1995 Regulation, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner also relied on the following decisions:

1. Uco Bank & Others Vs. Prabhakar Sadashiv Karvade, (2018) 14 SCC 98

2. Rajeshwar Prasad Sin