Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 168

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Subramonium Prasad, Vimal Kumar Yadav, JJ
Punjab and Sind Bank – Appellant
Versus
Amarjit Singh – Respondent
LPA 421/2025 | CM APPL. 38924/2025 | CM APPL. 38926/2025 | CM APPL. 38927/2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Kittu Bajaj
For the Respondents: Puneet K. Verma

In disciplinary proceedings initiated against retired employees, the requirement to be instituted by the 'Competent Authority' is mandatory. If the governing pension regulations reserve this power to a specific authority, any charge-sheet issued by a subordinate official is without jurisdiction and renders the entire proceeding void.

Headnote:(A) Pension Regulations - Regulations 43 and 45 - Discipline and Appeal Regulations - Post-retirement disciplinary proceedings - Limitation of authority - Jurisdiction of the competent authority - Charge-sheet issued by an authority not empowered under the regulations is non-est - Once an employee attains superannuation, the regulatory framework governing the pension becomes paramount. (Paras 3, 13, 14, 15)

(B) Administrative Law - Delegation of powers - Specificity of authority for initiating disciplinary action - Disciplinary proceedings against retired officials require strict adherence to the competent authority designated under the pension regulations - Any deviation from the prescribed authority renders the proceeding void ab initio. (Paras 16, 17, 18)

Facts of the case:
The respondent, a former senior official of a financial institution, was issued a charge-sheet after his retirement. A penalty of partial withholding of pension was imposed by the institution, which was challenged by the respondent. A single judge of the high court set aside the order, concluding that the charge-sheet was issued by an officer lacking the requisite jurisdiction, as the power to initiate such action against a pensioner was vested exclusively in the competent authority.

Findings of Court:
The court held that upon retirement, the pension regulations hold the field. Regulation 43 mandates that only the competent authority is empowered to withhold or withdraw pension. Since the charge-sheet was issued by a subordinate officer rather than the competent authority, the entire disciplinary proceeding initiated thereafter is vitiated and without legal jurisdiction.

Issues: Whether the issuance of a charge-sheet by a subordinate official against a retired employee is legally valid, and whether the power to initiate disciplinary proceedings and impose penalties on a retiree rests exclusively with the competent authority designated under the specific pension regulations.

Ratio Decidendi: Post-retirement disciplinary proceedings are strictly governed by specific pension regulations which prioritize the role of the competent authority. Substantive powers to initiate inquiry and penalize cannot be exercised by subordinate officials unless explicitly delegated. If the regulations do not permit delegation to a subordinate officer, any action initiated by said officer is fundamentally illegal and void.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. factual background and procedural history of the disciplinary case against the retired employee. (Para 1 , 2)
2. arguments concerning the jurisdiction of the disciplinary authority versus the competent authority in issuing charge-sheets post-retirement. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
3. only the designated competent authority has jurisdiction to initiate disciplinary proceedings against a retired pensioner under pension regulations. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
4. affirmation of the single judge's judgment and dismissal of the bank's appeal. (Para 18 , 19 , 20)

JUDGMENT

SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J.

1. The present Appeal has been filed on behalf of the Appellant against the Impugned Judgment dated 21.10.2024, passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. (C) 1289/2015, allowing the Writ Petition filed by the Respondent herein assailing the charge-sheet dated 12.09.2009 and Order dated 02.02.2013, by which a penalty of withholding of pension to the extent of Rs.12,000/- per month for a period of 15 years was imposed on the Respondent herein. In the Writ Petition, the Respondent herein had also challenged the Order dated 22.04.2013 by which the Appellate Authority dismissed the Appeal filed by the Respondent herein against the penalty Order dated 02.02.2013.

2. Shorn of the unnecessary details, the facts leading to the present Appeal are:

a) The Respondent was the Chief Manager of the Appellant Bank when he sought and was granted voluntary retirement after rendering a service of 34 years and 7 months in different positions and at different places in the Appellant Bank, and consequent thereto, he was relieved on 24.07.2008.

b) On 15.07.2009, after over one year of retirement, a charge-sheet was issued against the Respondent, which was challenged by him in this Court on several grounds in Writ Petitioner being W.P. (C) 10968.2009 and the Petition was allowed on 21.11.2013, against which the Appeal filed by the Appellant Bank is pending.

c) Thereafter, another charge-sheet was issued on 12.09.2009, pursuant to which the disciplinary proceedings were initiated and the Inquiry Officer (‘IO’) tendered his Report dated 27.10.2011 with a finding that the charges were proved against the Respondent.

d) Further, the Petitioner submitted his Representation against the Report on 02.12.2011.

e) Thereafter, the Chairman and Managing Director (‘CMD’) passed an Order on 02.02.2013 imposing the penalty of withholding of pension to the extent of Rs.12,000/- per month for 15 years but without ascertaining any alleged loss caused to the Appellant Bank.

f) Thereafter, the Appellant filed an Appeal before the Board of Directors (‘BOD’) on 22.04.2013, which was duly rejected by a non-speaking Order on 25.11.2013 and subsequently, the Review Petitions filed on 26.02.2014 and 10.05.2014 suffered the same fate and were rejected on 02.06.2014 on the ground that there was no provision to review the Order of the Appellate Authority.

g) Thereafter, the Petitioner filed an Application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (‘RTI Act’) to which a response was received on 16.06.2014 that the alleged loss suffered by the Appellant Bank was yet to be assessed. Further, vide Letter dated 07.08.2014, the Petitioner was informed that loss of more than Rs.20,00,00,000/- had been recovered by the Appellant Bank from Whitefield International Private Limited after filing a suit of recovery.

h) It is these Orders being charge-sheet dated 12.09.2009, Penalty Order dated 02.02.2013 and Order dated 25.11.2013 (by which the Appellate Authority dismissed the Appeal dated 22.04.2013) which were challenged in the W.P. (C) 1289/2015, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide Judgment dated 21.10.2024.

i) It is this Judgment dated 21.10.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge which is under challenge in the present Appeal.

3. The question before this Court in the present Appeal is whether (i) a charge-sheet issued by the General Mana

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 168

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHISubramonium Prasad, Vimal Kumar Yadav, JJPunjab and Sind Bank – AppellantVersusAmarjit Singh – RespondentLPA 421/2025 | CM APPL. 38924/2025 | CM APPL. 38926/2025 | CM APPL. 38927/2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Subramonium Prasad, Vimal Kumar Yadav, JJ
Punjab and Sind Bank – Appellant
Versus
Amarjit Singh – Respondent
LPA 421/2025 | CM APPL. 38924/2025 | CM APPL. 38926/2025 | CM APPL. 38927/2025