Service law – Dismissal from service – Initiation of disciplinary proceeding post superannuation – Disciplinary proceeding, if void-ab-initio – Employee with the Bank, on completion of
30 years was due to superannuate on 26.12.2003, however, was given extension until 01.10.2010 – In August 2009 employee placed under suspension for irregularities and sanctioning loans in favour of his relatives in violation of banking norms and missing documents – In 2011 disciplinary proceedings initiated against the employee, and thereafter in 2012 penalty of dismissal from service imposed on him – Upheld by the appellate authority as also the reviewing authority – Writ petition thereagainst – Allowed by the High Court holding that bank had no jurisdiction to initiate disciplinary proceeding beyond 01.10.2010, thus, the order of penalty, as also the order of the appellate authority and reviewing authority set aside and quashed, and the Bank directed to extend consequential service benefits to the employee – Said order upheld by the Division Bench – Correctness:
Held: No disciplinary proceeding can be initiated after the delinquent employee or officer retires from service on attaining the age of superannuation or after the extended period of service – Departmental proceeding is ordinarily said to be initiated only when a chargesheet is issued – Charge memo was issued to the employee in 2011 after his extension of service was over on 01.10.2010 – Employee was due to superannuate on 26.12.2003 apparently on completion of
30 years of service but his service was extended, and the extended service of the employee came to an end on 01.10.2010 – Relationship of master and servant between the Bank and the employee came to be severed on and from 01.10.2010 – Factum of receipt of subsistence allowance thereafter or the employee declaring that he would superannuate on a later date i.e. on 30.10.2012 on attaining the age of 60 years would not make any difference to the legal and factual scenario – Thus, it is evident that employee was no longer in the service of the Bank post 01.10.2010 – Disciplinary proceeding against the employee was not initiated on 18.08.2009 when the first notice to show cause was issued but was initiated only on 18.03.2011 when the disciplinary authority issued the charge memo to the employee – Subsisting disciplinary proceedingone initiated before superannuation of the delinquent officer may be continued post superannuation by creating a legal fiction of continuance of service of the delinquent officer for the purpose of conclusion of the disciplinary proceeding – Disciplinary proceeding, if initiated against an employee before he retires from service, could be continued and concluded even after his retirement and for the purpose of conclusion of the disciplinary proceeding, the employee is deemed to have continued in service but for no other purpose. [Paras 23, 24, 26, 28, 30-33]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.