IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE BEFORE:

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA W.P.A. 11753 of 2025 SRI PARTHA KUNDU VS.

THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS For the Petitioner : Mr. Pabitra Charan Bhattacharjee, Sr. Advocate Mr. S. Panja Mr. Sovan Nayak ….. advocates For the respondent no. 2 : Mr. Srijan Nayak Ms. Rituparna Maitra …. advocates Heard on : 03.02.2026 Judgment on : 03.02.2026 HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.:-

1. Affidavit of service filed in Court today is taken on record.

2. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the Durgapur Steel Peoples’ Co-operative Bank Limited has been duly served.

3. In spite of service none appears for the said Co-operative Bank.

4. The petitioner, who was working as an Assistant Manager, Main Branch Deposit Section at Durgapur Steel Peoples’ Co-operative Bank Limited, retired from service on superannuation on December 31, 2024. Prior to the date of superannuation, a show cause notice dated November 16, 2024 was issued and the petitioner submitted a reply to the show cause notice denying allegations contained in the show cause notice. The authorities of the Bank decided to hold an enquiry against the petitioner and the memorandum of charges dated December 24, 2024 was served upon the petitioner.

5. The petitioner has challenged the action of the authorities of the Bank to continue with the disciplinary proceedings after the date of superannuation.

6. Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that there is no provision for continuation of the disciplinary proceedings after the retirement of the employees of the Co-operative Bank either in the Memorandum of Understanding (Service Rules) of the bank as well as the West Bengal Co-operative Societies’ Rules. Mr. Bhattacharjee refers to the order dated June 10, 2025 wherein a direction was passed upon the respondent nos. 3 to 6 to place before the court a chart showing the exact retiral dues payable to the petitioner and the outstanding loan amount as on December 31, 2024. Mr. Bhattacharjee further submits that the directions contained in the order dated 10^th June, 2025 has not been complied with by the respondent nos. 3 to 6 till date.

7. Mr. Nayak, learned advocate appears for the 2^nd respondent. He submits that the respondent nos. 3 to 6 are the answering respondents in this matter.

8. Heard the learned advocates for the parties and perused the materials placed.

9. In paragraph 39 of the writ petition it has been specifically stated that there is no provision for continuation of the disciplinary proceedings after retirement either in the Memorandum of Understanding (Service Rules) of the bank and the West Bengal Co-operative Societies’ Rules. Such averment in the writ petition remains uncontroverted. No material has been produced by the respondents to show that the service Rules governing the service of the petitioner permits continuation of disciplinary proceedings after the date of superannuation.

10. Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioner places reliance upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UCO Bank & Anr. Vs. Rajinder Lal Capoor reported at AIR 2008 SC 1831 in support of his contention that the disciplinary proceedings cannot be continued after an employee reaches his age of superannuation in the absence of any rules in that regard.

11. In the said report the Hon’ble Supreme held that ordinarily no disciplinary proceedings can be continued in the absence of any rule after an employee reaches his age of superannuation. It was further held therein that a rule which would enable the disciplinary authority to continue a disciplinary proceedings despite the officers reaching the age of superannuation must be a statutory rule. A fortiori it must be a rule applicable to a disciplinary proceedings.

12. As observed hereinbefore no material has been produced before this Court to show that the servi