Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(J&K) 760

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR
Sanjeev Kumar, Sanjay Parihar, JJ
Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd – Appellant
Versus
Naseer Ahmad Sheikh – Respondent
LPA No. 233/2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shafqat Nazir, Heena Baqal
For the Respondents: Shuja-ul-Haq

Disciplinary proceedings initiated before superannuation can continue post-retirement under Rule 259 OSM-2000, and constitutional courts cannot re-appreciate evidence in judicial review of departmental enquiries.

Headnote:(A) Officers' Service Manual-2000 - Rule 259 - Rule 337(c) - Disciplinary proceedings against a bank officer initiated prior to superannuation can continue after superannuation - Bank has power to impose penalty of dismissal post-superannuation if rules permit - Scope of judicial review in disciplinary proceedings limited to decision-making process, not merits - High Court cannot re-appreciate evidence or sit as appellate court over enquiry findings - Interference warranted only if findings are perverse, based on no evidence, or violate natural justice. (Paras 15-20)

(B) Service Law - Misconduct - A bank officer holds a position of trust dealing with public funds - Sanction of loan beyond authority or not ensuring end-use amounts to financial irregularity exposing bank to financial risk - Penal action cannot be questioned merely because no loss is suffered - Reckless lending by branch manager in granting TODs without sanction from competent authority constitutes grave misconduct warranting dismissal. (Paras 29-33)

Facts of the case:
The respondent, a branch head of J&K Bank, was placed under suspension and charge-sheeted for granting temporary overdrafts (TODs) beyond his authority at two branches. Two departmental enquiries were initiated before his superannuation. After his retirement, the enquiries concluded holding the charges proved. The disciplinary authority dismissed him from service with effect from his date of superannuation. The writ court quashed the dismissal, leading to this intra-court appeal by the bank.

Findings of Court:
The Division Bench held that the enquiries were conducted in full compliance with statutory and procedural requirements, affording adequate opportunity to the respondent. The findings of the enquiry officers were based on evidence and were not perverse. The writ court erred in re-appreciating evidence and substituting its own findings. The punishment of dismissal was proportionate to the proved misconduct of unauthorized lending exposing the bank to financial risk.

Issues: (1) Whether an employee against whom disciplinary proceedings are initiated while in service can be dismissed after superannuation? (2) Whether the enquiry proceedings were vitiated and the dismissal order perverse or disproportionate?

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that under Rule 259 of OSM-2000, disciplinary proceedings initiated before superannuation can continue post-retirement and culminate in dismissal. The constitutional court's role in judicial review of disciplinary proceedings is confined to examining the decision-making process, not reappreciating evidence. Interference is permissible only if the findings are perverse, based on no evidence, or violative of natural justice. The enquiry conducted was fair, and the dismissal order was sustainable.

Result: Appeal allowed. Impugned judgment set aside and writ petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. facts leading to disciplinary proceedings and dismissal of respondent. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
2. writ court's findings challenged by bank; respondent's arguments in support. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
3. disciplinary proceedings can continue and culminate in dismissal after superannuation if rules permit. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
4. scope of judicial review limited to decision-making process, not reappreciation of evidence. (Para 18 , 19 , 20)
5. enquiry was fair; no violation of natural justice; respondent failed to prove defence. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28)
6. bank officer's misconduct of unauthorized lending warrants dismissal; no perversity found. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34)
7. rule 337(c) misinterpreted by writ court; appeal allowed; writ dismissed. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39)

J U D G M E N T

Per Sanjeev Kumar: J

1. This intra-court appeal by the Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd, is directed against an order and judgement dated 24th of July 2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of this court in WP (C) No. 2887/2022 titled Naseer Ahmed Sheikh vs. J&K Bank Ltd. & Ors, whereby the court has allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent to throw challenge to an order dated 1st of April 2022.

2. Before we advert to the grounds of challenge urged by learned counsel appearing for the appellants, we deem it proper to narrate few facts as are relevant to the controversy raised in this appeal.

3. The respondent has retired on superannuation from the appellant-Bank as Branch Head. He was placed under suspension by the appellant-Bank on 17th March 2021 in contemplation of an enquiry into various acts of omission and commission alleged to have been committed by him during his tenure as Branch Head, Branch Office Barzulla and Branch Office Rangreth.

4. With a view to investigate the allegations, the appellant-Bank conducted a preliminary enquiry which culminated into the issuance of a formal charge sheet to the respondent on 21st May 2021. This was the charge sheet pertaining to his misconduct allegedly committed by him while working as Branch Head of Branch Office, Rangreth.

5. It seems that during the course of enquiry, some serious acts of grave omission and commission attributable to the appellant during his tenure as Branch Head at Branch Office Barzulla, Srinagar, also came to light. Consequently, another charge sheet dated 28th June 2021, was also issued by the Bank to the respondent.

6. After receiving reply to the charge sheet, the disciplinary authority having found the same unsatisfactory ordered a disciplinary/departmental enquiry into the charges and appointed Mr. Hayat Mohammad Rather as Enquiry Officer vide order dated 22nd June 2021. The second enquiry in respect of Branch Office, Barzulla was handed over to Mr. Gulzar Ahmad who was appointed as Enquiry Officer by the disciplinary authority vide order dated 9th August 2021. While the departmental enquiries were going on, the respondent attained the age of superannuation on 30th June 2021. Notwithstanding the superannuation of respondent, two enquiries, initiated while he was in service, proceeded, in which the appellant-Bank claims to have afforded full opportunity to the respondent to defend. On conclusion of the enquiries, the Enquiry Officer submitted their respective enquiry reports on 07.09.2021 and 20.09.2021 to the disciplinary authority. In the said reports, all imputations against the respondent stood proved except imputation No. 4 of Article I of the charge sheet dated 28th of June 2021. The disciplinary authority upon consideration clubbed both sets of charges and the finding returned by the Enquiry Officers for the purpose of issuance of a composite show cause notice. Consequently, vide letter dated 20th of November 2021, said composite show cause notice was served upon the respondent to elicit his reply to the proposed penalty. The respondent not only filed his reply thereto but also sought a personal hear

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(J&K) 760

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGARSanjeev Kumar, Sanjay Parihar, JJJammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd – AppellantVersusNaseer Ahmad Sheikh – RespondentLPA No. 233/2025

Disciplinary proceedings initiated before superannuation can continue post-retirement under Rule 259 OSM-2000, and constitutional courts cannot re-appreciate evidence in judicial review of departmental enquiries.

Cases Referred (5)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR
Sanjeev Kumar, Sanjay Parihar, JJ
Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd – Appellant
Versus
Naseer Ahmad Sheikh – Respondent
LPA No. 233/2025