Virinder Pal Singh vs Punjab and Sind Bank & Ors.

Held: In the instant case, as there was no challenge to the indictment that huge amount of cash withdrawals was allowed without taking supporting bills/receipts, the charge that the appellant had failed to ensure end use of the loan stood proved – Appellant while assailing the disciplinary action pressed only one ground i.e., that the extant Discipline and Appeal Regulations/Service Regulations under which the punishment was imposed, applied to serving employees only – Besides, a bank officer holds a position of trust as he deals with public funds – Sanction of loan beyond one’s power, or not ensuring end-use of the loan, amounts to financial irregularity which exposes the Bank to financial risk – Therefore, penal action on proof of such a charge cannot be questioned merely because no loss is suffered by the Bank – This Court finds that there is neither any perversity in the finding(s) returned by the Inquiry Officer nor do this Court deems it appropriate to permit the appellant to question the merit of the finding(s) that Charge No.2 (appellant had failed to ensure the end use of the loan) was partly proved, particularly when no such plea was pressed before the High Court – In the instant case, the punishment awarded is of reducing the pay scale by three stages on permanent basis – Such reduction in the pay scale would relate back to the date the incumbent superannuated from service – Ordinarily, pension is computed based on salary last drawn/payable – Therefore, in view of this Court, it would not be difficult to implement such a punishment as pension can be computed accordingly. [Paras 18, 19, 21, 37]

Punjab and Sind Bank Officers’ Service Regulations, 1982 – r.20(3)(iii) – Post retirement continuation of the disciplinary proceedings:

Held: In view of this Court, what is settled is that if the extant service Rules/Regulations permit continuance of the disciplinary proceedings, initiated against an officer/ employee before he had attained the age of superannuation, those can be continued and brought to its logical conclusion even after he had attained the age of superannuation – And where, pursuant to such proceedings, the ultimate penalty imposed is of dismissal, there may be no technical difficulty in its implementation as it may result in forfeiture of pension and other retiral dues – Therefore, in such an event, the question of entitlement to pensionary benefits may not arise – However, where the punishment imposed is such which may, instead of forfeiture of pension in its entirety, result in mere reduction or adjustment of pension, or recovery from post retiral dues, the Court may have to consider whether such punishment is implementable or not, post-retirement. [Para 36]