JUDGMENT

Pankaj Jain, J.

Varinder Kalia, the petitioner seeks writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of order dated 30th of January, 2018 passed by respondent No.2 and the chargesheet served upon the petitioner vide Annexures P-3 and P-4.

2. Petitioner was serving as officer in the respondent-Bank and earned promotions to become Manager. He was appointed on 8th of January, 1985 and was due to retire on attaining the age of superannuation on 31st of January, 2018. 31st of January, 2018 being holiday on account of Guru Ravi Dass Jayanti he was relieved on 30th of January, 2018. Before the petitioner could be relieved he was served with the order of suspension on 30th of January, 2018 itself. Suspension order has been placed on record as Annexure P-1. Thereafter, Chargesheet was served upon the petitioner on 23rd of March, 2018. Counsel for the petitioner asserts that from the Regulations governing the service condition of the petitioner, it is evident that the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner cannot be initiated after his retirement as on 30th of January, 2018 there was no chargesheet pending against the petitioner. He submits that merely service of suspension order (Annexure P-1) will not have an effect of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and, thus, service of chargesheet on the petitioner after he retired from the services cannot be sustained. In support of his contention, counsel for the petitioner relies upon law laid down in UCO Bank and another v. Rajinder Lal Capoor , (2008) 5 SCC 257 .

3. Per contra, counsel for the respondents submits that a bare perusal of suspension order (Annexure P-1) would reveal that the petitioner was placed under suspension on 30th of January, 2018 in token of disciplinary proceedings against him and the chargesheet was to follow which was served upon him on 23rd of March, 2018. He, thus, submits that the order of suspension dated 30th of January, 2018 (Annexure P-1) has an effect on initiation of departmental proceedings against the petitioner and the same are fully covered under Regulations 45 and 46 of the Punjab Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations, 2010. In order to hammerforth his contention, counsel for the respondents relies upon judgment passed by Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.2949 of 2014 titled as United Bank of India v. Bachan Prasad Lall to submit that merely because an employee stood superannuated during the pendency of the proceedings, the same shall not have an effect of absolving him from the misconduct which he had committed in discharge of his duties.

4. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case.

5. In the considered opinion of this Court, the questions that arise for consideration are -

(i) Whether order of suspension dated 30th of January, 2018 passed against the petitioner amounts to initiation of inquiry proceedings against him?

(ii) Whether the inquiry proceedings could be initiated against the petitioner after his retirement ?

6. In order to answer aforesaid two questions it will be apt to peruse the relevant regulations contained in Regulations No.45 and 46 of the Punjab Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations, 2010, which read as under :-

45. Disciplinary proceedings after retirement.-

(1) An officer or employee who is under suspension on a charge of misconduct and who attains the age of superannuation shall be deemed to be in service even after the age of superannuation for the specific purpose of continuation and conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings and issue of final orders thereon.

(2) The officer o