After retirement, the termination order cannot be passed, and only an order in respect of withholding or withdrawing the pension can be passed under Regulation 43 of Syndicate Bank (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995.

ORDER

1. The Appellants/Bank has filed this Writ Appeal under Section 2(1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nayalaya (Khand Naypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 against the order dated 06.04.2018 passed by Writ Court in Writ Petition No. 3011 of 2017 whereby Writ Petition filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as '' Writ Petitioner'') has been allowed.

The facts of the case, in short, are as under;-

2. The appellants are the General Manager, Regional Manager, and Branch Manager of the then Syndicate Bank now which has been merged with Canara Bank ( hereinafter referred to as "the Bank" ). The respondent was posted as Manager at Gandhibag Branch, Nagpur. During the period between 09.11.2010 and 30.09.2011. He was caught red-handed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter will be referred to as ''CBI'' for convenience) while accepting a bribe of Rs.5,000/- from Smt. Radhika Headau customer/borrower of the Branch. An FIR was registered for the offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ''Act, 1988'') and a charge-sheet was filed before the competent court.

3. On account of the aforesaid incident, a charge-sheet dated 14.06.2014 vide Regulation No.6 of Syndicate Bank Officer Employees (Discipline & Appeal) Regulation, 1976 was also served to him as he abused the official position for demanding and accepting the pecuniary advantage of Rs. 5,000/- in violation of Regulation 3(1) read with Regulation 24 of Syndicate Bank Officer Employees' (conduct) Regulations, 1976 which is having statutory force. The writ petitioner submitted a reply to the charge-sheet and participated in the departmental enquiry. During the pendency of the departmental enquiry, the writ petitioner attained the age of superannuation, therefore, he ceased to be in service w.e.f. 30.06.2014 but by virtue of Section 20 (3) (iii) and 46 (1) of Syndicate Bank (Employees') Pension Regulation, 1995, the departmental enquiry continued an enquiry report was submitted on 28.12.2015 to the disciplinary authority. A second show cause notice was served to the writ petitioner to which he submitted a reply and thereafter vide order dated 31.12.2015 penalty of dismissal from service was imposed upon him.

4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid punishment, the writ petitioner preferred a departmental appeal on 18.07.2016 which came to be dismissed on 18.11.2016. Thereafter review petition was also dismissed. The bank stopped paying him the pension w.e.f. 31.05.2016.

5. The writ petitioner filed Writ Petition no.3011/2017 before this Court seeking appropriate writ, order or directions to the bank to pay the pension from 01.06.2016 onward with interest and any other relief deem as fit.

6. The bank filed a reply to the writ petition contending that as per Regulation 22(1) of Syndicate Bank (Employees) Pension Regulation, 1995 upon resignation or dismissal or removal or termination the employee shall not be entitled for his entire past service and consequentially not qualify for pensionary benefits, hence, the writ petitioner is not eligible to get pensionary benefits, thus, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

7. The Writ petition was finally heard and vide order dated 06.04.2018, the Writ Court has held that after the conclusion of the departmental enquiry the disciplinary authority has not passed the order in consonance with the Regulation 43 of Syndicate Bank (Employees') Pension Regulation, 1995, hence, set aside the order of termination dated 31.05.2016 as well as the order of appellate authority dated 18.11.2016 with liberty to the respondent/bank to pass a fresh order keeping in view the Syndicate Bank (Employees') Pension Regulation, 1995 within a period of 60 days.

8. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the appellants/bank has preferred the present Writ Appeal.

9. Learned counsel for the appellants/bank submits that the Writ Court has wrongly set aside the order of punishment as well as appellate authority de