IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA &

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRADEEP MITTAL

nd

ON THE 22 OF JANUARY, 2026 WRIT APPEAL No. 1343 of 2024 ZILA SAHKARI KENDRIYA BANK MARYADIT Versus JHALKAN SINGH THAKUR AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Priyam Shrivastava - Advocate for the appellant.

Shri Ravindra Kumar Bisen - Advocate for the respondent No.1.

ORDER Per: Justice Vivek Rusia The appellant/Bank has filed this appeal challenging the order dated

04.04.2024 (Annexure A/1), whereby W.P. No.5289/2015 has been allowed only on the ground that the order of dismissal cannot be passed after attaining the age of superannuation of the writ petitioner.

Facts of the case, in short, are as follows:

2. The appellant/Bank is a Cooperative Bank. The respondent No.1/Jhalkan Singh Thakur, was appointed to the post of Samiti Prabandhak. During his posting at Seva Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Bakeni, allegations of financial irregularities were levelled against him.

3. A Departmental Inquiry was conducted, and his services were terminated w.e.f. 17.02.1993, which was subsequently set aside by the Joint Registrar Cooperative Society, Sagar, with a direction of reinstatement without back wages. On appeal, the M.P. State Cooperative Tribunal remanded the matter in 2013 for a fresh Departmental Inquiry. Pursuant thereto, the appellant/Bank conducted a fresh inquiry after issuing repeated notices, including public notice. However, the respondents failed to participate.

4. The inquiry proceeded ex parte, and the charges were found proved. Based on the inquiry report, the respondents' services were terminated again alongwith a direction for recovery. The respondents challenged the said termination before this Court.

5. Vide order dated 04.04.2024, the learned Single Judge partly allowed the writ petition, setting aside the termination on the ground of superannuation, while upholding the recovery. Hence, this appeal is before this Court.

6. By way of writ petition, the respondent No.1/petitioner has assailed the order dated 28.08.2014 of the M.P. State Cooperative Tribunal, Bhopal, whereby the contempt case was dismissed, and the respondent No.1/petitioner sought the release of retirement dues. According to the writ petitioner, once he has been superannuated, the Disciplinary Authority could not have passed the order of termination. The writ petition was filed only on three grounds, which are reproduced below:-

6.1. That, the Respondents being authority of State are duty bound to act in accordance with law and procedure, the entire enquiry report and the documents annexed in the petition clearly demonstrates that there is violation of Article 311 of Constitution of India warranting interference of this Hon'ble Court.

6.2. That it is well settled in law that as soon as master and servant relation comes to an end, punitive action against employee is not permissible in law after his superannuation but in the present case, without obtaining the permission of competent authority, the services has been terminated after lapse of more than one year from the date of superannuation of the petitioner warranting interference of this Hon'ble Court.

6.3. That the petitioner prays for mercy of this Hon'ble Court by permitting petitioner to raise other grounds apart from the facts and grounds mentioned in the memo of petition at the time of hearing.

7. After the order passed by the Tribunal dated 26.03.2013, the appellant/Bank issued a letter dated 26.07.2014 alongwith copy of the inquiry report to the respondent No.1/ writ petitioner and fixed the date for personal hearing on 04.08.2014. The writ petitioner refused to receive the said letter and did not appear before the Staff Sub Committee. The appellant/Bank issued an order of termination dated 28.08.2014.

8. The respondent No.1/writ petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court challenging the order dated 26.03.2013 (Annexure P/1), but in the relief clause, he has not sought the quashment of the