Parbodh Kumar vs Punjab and Sind Bank and others

P.B. Bajanthri, J.—In the instant writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the validity of order dated 23.8.2013 by which disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of "Reduction in the monthly pension of CSO by Rs. 15,000/- PM for 36 months under Regulation 43 and 45 read with Regulation 48 of Pension Regulations � 1995" and further he has questioned the validity of the order dated 29.11.2013 by which the Appellate Authority has rejected his appeal.

The petitioner is stated to have appointed as Clerk-cum-Cashier in Punjab and Sind Bank. He has earned promotion to the cadre of Officer Grade and to the Manager cadre. He has attained age of superannuation and retired from service as a Manager on 30.1.2011.

On 6.7.2012, disciplinary proceedings were initiated under clause 6 (1) of the Punjab and Sind Bank Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1981 (amended from time to time). Perusal of the charge indicates that certain events which are taken beyond the date of retirement of the petitioner, inquiry has been initiated. The disciplinary authority concluded the inquiry by imposing the penalty of reduction in the monthly pension by Rs. 15,000/- per month for 36 months under Regulation 43 and 45 read with Regulation 48 of Pension Regulations, 1995. While imposing the penalty, the disciplinary authority has observed as follows:-

"It is also noticed that his acts of misconduct may not cause any financial loss to the bank in terms of DEX 1/1 and affidavit given by the drawer of cheque in question. But it is matter of Banks record that the party has defrauded the Bank by Rs.11.07 crore and I am of the considered opinion that the CSO has unlawfully gained by Rs. 5.00 thus enhancing Banks'' likely financial loss to the tune of Rs. 11.07 crore for his personal gain of Rs.5.00 lac. In my opinion personal deposition and evidence by submitting an affidavit by a party who committed a fraud with the bank has no relevancy."

Reading of the observations of the disciplinary authority is crystal clear that there is no financial loss to the Bank with reference to charge memo. However, an extraneous information/materials have been taken into consideration stating that financial loss to the tune of Rs. 11.7 crore for personal gain of Rs. 5 lacs is recorded which is not part and parcel of the charge memo. That apart, in the inquiry, there is no determination of loss. Consequently, imposing the penalty of reduction in monthly pension to the tune of Rs. 15,000/- per month for 36 months is impermissible.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the very initiation of departmental inquiry is without authority of law for the reasons that the petitioner has attained age of superannuation and retired from service on 30.1.2011. Consequently, holding an inquiry and ordering recovery against retired employee is impermissible. Recovery, if any, is permissible in a case of an employee while he was in service if departmental inquiry is initiated and concluded after his retirement then only question of invoking Regulation 43 and 45 read with Regulation 48 of Pension Regulation 1995 can be invoked. Therefore, entire action of the respondents is without authority and law.

It was noticed that the disciplinary authority initiated inquiry under the Punjab and Sind Bank Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1981. Rule 6 has invoked for the purpose of framing charges. The disciplinary authority has failed to notice that the Discipline and Appeal Regulations, 1981 is not applicable to those retired employees. For the purpose of saying so, it is relevant to read the Application clause of Discipline and Appeal Regulations 1981 which reads as under:-

"2. Application:

These regulations shall apply to all officer employees of the bank, but shall not apply to-

(i)the Chairman of the bank;

(ii)the Managing Director;

(iii)any wholetime Director, if any;

(iv)those who are in casual employment or paid from contingencies;

(v)the award staff; and

(vi)the officers on contract."

The application clause do not provide for initiation of inquiry against a retired employee, therefore, root of the matter is that initiation of inquiry itself is without authority of law. Consequently, all proceedings from the date of initiation of disciplinary proceedings till Appellate Authority''s Order dated 29.11.2013 (Annexure P-8) are vitiated. In view of the legal position as well as facts and circumstances, impugned order dated 23.8.2013 (Annexure P-4) and order dated 29.11.2013 (Annexure P-8) are set aside.

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that recovery already effected pursuant to the order dated 23.8.2013 (Annexure P-4) shall be refunded to the petitioner within a period of three months from today.

Writ petition stands allowed.