IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay WPO No. 59 of 2017 Pranab Kumar Roy -Vs-

Punjab National Bank (Formerly Known As United Bank Of India) And Ors.

For the Petitioner : Mr. Debrup Bhattacharjee Mr. S. S. Biswas Mr. Siddharth Singh For the Respondent-Bank : Mr. R. N. Majumder Mr. S. M. Obaidullah Judgment on : 31.03.2026 Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.:-

1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner against the purported Order of the Executive Director and Disciplinary Authority dated November 25, 2014 bearing Ref. No.PD/DIR/10/1616 (C)/5117/2014 in respect of the Disciplinary Proceeding initiated against him by the respondent-Bank by way of Letter of Charge bearing Ref. No.HO/PD/DIR/1616 (C)/7712/2011 dated 29.10.2011 along with Addendum No.HO/PD/DIR/1616 (C)/938/2013 dated 28.05.2013 and No.PD/DIR/09/1616(C)/3188/2013 dated 17.10.2013 and the Order of the Appellate Authority dated April 06, 2016 upholding the order and punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority vide Order dated November 25, 2014.

2. The respondent no.1 comprised one of 14 major banks to be nationalized on July 19, 1969. On and from 1st April, 2020, the United Bank of India merged with the respondent no.1 bank. The respondent no.2 and 3 were the officers of the respondent no.1. The respondents no.1 to 3 formed the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.

3. The petitioner, the erstwhile employee of respondent no.1 Bank, was appointed in service of the United Bank of India prior to its merging on March 05, 1974 as Direct Officer and held the post of General Manager on the date of his superannuation on 31.10.2011. His entire tenure of 37 years of employment was unsullied devoid of allegation except the present one being mala fide and baseless without any proof thereof.

4. On 29.10.2011, i.e., two days prior to his date of superannuation, the petitioner was served with a purported charge-sheet bearing Ref. No.HO/OD/DIR/1616 (C)/7712/2011 dated 29.10.2011. In the said charge-sheet, it was alleged that the petitioner had committed certain irregularities while sanctioning the loan amounts to companies and had purportedly violated the said Bank’s Lending Policy dated 06.05.2009 in the process consequently failing to protect the interest of the said Bank, in contravention of Regulation 3(1) and 3(3) of the United Bank of India Officer Employees’ (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 amounting misconduct under Regulation 24 of the said Regulations. Thereafter further charges were added to the said charge-sheet by way of Addendum No.PD/DIR/06/1616(C)/938/2013 dated 28.05.2013.

5. It was pertinent to state that the actions of the petitioner with regard to which the purported disciplinary action had been initiated against him were all in pursuance of discharging of official duties by the petitioner. The same were bona fide actions based on professional expertise of the petitioner and were also approved by his seniors.

6. The petitioner, through a letter dated 31st October, 2011 and letter dated June 06, 2013 addressed to the Chairman and Managing Director, United Bank of India, communicated his preliminary objections against the charges levelled against him.

7. On 31st October, 2011, the petitioner received a letter from the Executive Director of the respondent no.1 the then United Bank of India (now known as Punjab National Bank) which stated the Disciplinary Proceeding initiated against him in view of the abovementioned charge-sheet dated 29.10.2011 would continue after his superannuation. It was further stated he would not receive any pay and/or allowances after the date of cessation of his service and also would not be entitled to his retirement benefits till the final disposal of the disciplinary proceeding initiated against him.

8. Upon receipt of such reply from the petitioner, the Disciplinary Authority, vide its letter dated 14.08.2013,