Disciplinary proceedings against retired employees must be commenced within four years of the conduct, or they become invalid.

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed to call for the records in ZO/DA:GM(BARP)-ZO: VIG : 9297 & 9656 : 509 : 2019-2020 dated 01.08.2019 of the second respondent and to set aside the same as illegal and without jurisdiction.

2. Heard Mr.S.Sathiaseelan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.K.Srinivasamurthy, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the materials placed on record, apart form the pleadings of the parties.

3. The petitioner, who was working as Chief Manager, has been suspended from service just two days prior to his date of superannuation. The impugned charge sheets were issued in respect of three loan accounts handled by the petitioner.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the above charge memo itself is illegal because it has been issued in violation of the Staff Accountability Policy, IOB Pension Regulations, 1995. He further submitted that as per the above Regulations, no action should be initiated against any officials in respect of any allegations of loss after the expiry of four years from the date of the event and that too, not detected in two consecutive internal inspections. The procedure contemplated under the Staff Accountability Policy, IOB Pension Regulations, 1995 for disciplinary proceedings and the suspension has not been followed in the case of the petitioner and hence, the charges should be quashed.

5. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the fraud, misappropriation and criminal breach of trust was detected only on 27.10.2015 through the advice sent by the State Bank of Travancore, wherein it is stated that there is a prior mortgage in respect of the same property offered as collateral security by the borrower and they have initiated SARFAESI proceedings. As the petitioner has retired from service, the respondents has to get prior approval and the files have to be scrutinized by various authorities by the Regional Office, Zonal Office, Central Vigilance Officer, Competent Authority and Disciplinary Authority. The process of initiating disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner has consumed much time and the petitioner was given with the charges on 01.08.2019, when the date of detection was on 27.10.2015.

6. The argument of the learned counsel for the respondents is that the fraud was detected on 27.10.2015 and the charges against the petitioner were issued on 01.08.2019, which is well within the period of four years from the date of detection.

7. On perusal of the Article of the Charges, it is seen that the fraud is found to be connecting to the following loans :-

 Insofar as the first loan is concerned, it is alleged that the above loan has been released on 11.04.2014. With regard to the second loan, it is stated that the loan has been released on 30.10.2013, 13.11.2013 and 18.11.2014. The third loan is seen to have been released on 11.03.2014 and 17.03.2014. The memorandum of allegations and articles of charges is dated 01.08.2019. The petitioner has retired from service on 30.06.2014. The petitioner has been placed under suspension on 28.06.2014 just two days prior to his date of superannuation.

8. Earlier, the petitioner was given with the charges on 25.06.2014 with regard to the disbursement pertaining to the loan account of M/s.Trymax Fly Ash Bricks and Tiles. The disciplinary proceedings