Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Gau) 1190

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Kaushik Goswami, J.
Smti Sudarshana Chakraborty, Wife of Late Sridhar Chakraborty - Petitioner
Versus
Central Bank of India Represented by its Managing Director - Respondent
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 5666 of 2018
Decided On : 11-06-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. A. Dasgupta, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. B. Das.
For the Respondent:Mr. M. Sharma, Advocate.

Disciplinary proceedings initiated before retirement may continue thereafter for determining retiral benefits, but a disciplinary authority lacks the jurisdiction to impose substantive penalties like dismissal or removal once the master-servant relationship has terminated upon an employee's superannuation.

Headnote:(A) Service Law - Disciplinary proceedings - Imposition of major penalty after superannuation - Whether order dismissing employee from service valid if passed post-retirement - Disciplinary jurisdiction under service regulations is exercisable against a serving employee - Master-servant relationship ceases upon superannuation - Continuation of proceedings post-retirement is for limited purpose of determining entitlement to terminal benefits - Regulation allows continuation of proceedings but does not authorize imposition of substantive service penalties like dismissal - Impugned order of dismissal set aside as lacking jurisdiction. (Paras 9, 10, 11, 12, 17)

Facts of the case:
Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against an employee while in service. Before the conclusion of these proceedings, the employee reached the age of superannuation and retired. Subsequent to the retirement, the disciplinary authority passed an order imposing a penalty of dismissal from service. The legal representative challenged the order on the grounds that the authority lacked the power to inflict substantive service penalties after the cessation of the employment relationship.

Findings of Court:
The court held that while regulations permit the continuation of disciplinary proceedings after retirement, such continuation is restricted to determining pensionary and retiral benefits. The regulations do not confer jurisdiction to impose major penalties such as dismissal on a retired individual, as the employment status essential for such penalties has already terminated.

Issues: Whether a disciplinary authority possesses the legal jurisdiction to impose a penalty of dismissal upon an employee who has superannuated before the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: Disciplinary proceedings initiated during service may continue post-retirement, but only for the purpose of adjusting or withholding retiral benefits. Substantive penalties like dismissal or removal, which are contingent upon the maintenance of the master-servant relationship, cannot be imposed once the employee has superannuated.

Result: Writ petition allowed; impugned dismissal order set aside.

Table of Content
1. summary of employment history, disciplinary proceedings, and substitution of legal representative. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 8)
2. conflict between employer's right to discipline and employee's claim of lack of jurisdiction post-superannuation. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. examination of bank regulations regarding disciplinary continuation post-retirement. (Para 7 , 9 , 10 , 11)
4. post-retirement disciplinary inquiries do not permit substantive service penalties like dismissal. (Para 12 , 13 , 14)
5. applicability of binding precedents over distinct statutory frameworks. (Para 15 , 16)
6. dismissal of post-superannuation employee exceeds disciplinary authority under law. (Para 17 , 18 , 19)

JUDGMENT :

Kaushik Goswami, J.

Heard Mr. A. Dasgupta, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. B. Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. M. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is assailing the impugned dismissal order dated 19.05.2017, issued by the Regional Manager, Central Bank of India, Guwahati, whereby the petitioner was dismissed from service.

3. The brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioner was an employee of Central Bank of India and came to be dismissed from service by order dated 19.05.2017. During his service tenure, a charge sheet dated 15.06.2016 was issued to him containing twelve articles of charge. Pursuant thereto, a department enquiry was conducted. The Enquiry Officer, upon finding the charges proved, submitted his report on 24.03.2017. Acting on the said report, the disciplinary authority passed the order dated 19.05.2017 imposing various penalties upon the petitioner. Insofar as the charge Nos. 1 to 5 were concerned, the penalty of dismissal from service was imposed. In respect of charge Nos. 6, 7, 9 and 10, the petitioner was visited with the penalty of reduction in the scale of pay by four increments for a period of 2 years. For charge No. 8, the penalty of reduction by one increment for a period of 2 years was imposed, while for charge Nos. 11 and 12, the penalty of reduction by 2 increments was awarded. It is however not in dispute that the petitioner had already attained the age of superannuation and retired from service on 31.08.2016.

4. The principal contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that having superannuated on 31.08.2016, the disciplinary authority lacked the jurisdiction to impose the impugned penalty of dismissal by order dated 19.05.2017. According to the petitioner, by the time the disciplinary proceeding culminated and the impugned came to be passed, the relationship of employer and employee had already ceased on account of his retirement from service. It is further contended that although representations were submitted seeking reconsideration of the impugned order, no favourable decision was taken thereon. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present writ petition.

5. Mr. A. Dasgupta, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, submits that since the petitioner having in the meantime superannuated pending disciplinary proceedings, the disciplinary authority could not have inflicted major substantive punishment of dismissal upon him. He further submits that the issue is no longer res-integra in view of the judgments passed by the Apex Court in the case of UCO Bank and Ors. Vs. Prabhakar Sadashiv Karvade , reported in (2018) 14 SCC 98 and UCO Bank and Ors. Vs. Rajendra Shankar Shukla , reported in (2018) 14 SCC 92.

6. Per contra, Mr. M. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that since the proceedings have been initiated while the petitioner was in service, there is no bar upon the respondent bank for inflicting the punishment of dismissal upon the petitioner notwithstanding that he superannuated in the meantime. In support of the aforesaid, he relies upon the decision of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Gau) 1190

Cases Referred (2)