Ms. Sriparna Chatterjee, Mr. Soumitra Chatterjee, Mr. Manish Ms. Mansi, Advs v. STATE BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS

Judgment

1. The present appeal is filed by the Appellant herein assailing the judgment dated 28.01.2022 (hereinafter referred to as ―Impugned Judgment‖), wherein the learned Single Judge had dismissed the Writ Petition bearing No. 13764/2009 on the ground that the inquiry proceedings initiated against the Appellant herein does not suffer from any infirmity. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts leading to the present appeal are as follows – a. The Appellant herein is an employee of the Respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as ―Respondent Bank‖) since the year 1969 and has been in service for about 38 years. The Appellant was due to Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RAHUL SINGH Signing Date:15.09.2025 16.37.37 LPA 64/2023 Page 1 of 30 achieve his superannuation on 31.01.2007 and was serving as a Chief Manager of the Respondent Bank at the time of his retirement. b. Two days prior to his superannuation, the Appellant was served with a chargesheet dated 29.01.2007 on the following charges: “ARTICLE OF CHARGE NO.1 In gross violation of the prescribed instructions, in sheer dereliction of duty and misusing the official position, Shri S. P. Sharma (a) sanctioned and disbursed Housing / Mortgage Loans to various borrowers but did not conduct purposeful pre - sanction inspections of the immovable properties, which were proposed to be equitably mortgaged as security of these loans, (b) failed to verify the antecedents of the borrower before sanction of a housing loan, and (c) while sanctioning two mortgage loans, falsely recorded outcome of the pre - sanction inspections in the Inspection Register that he had inspected the Houses of the borrowers. ARTICLE OF CHARGE NO.2 In gross violation of the prescribed instructions, in sheer dereliction of duty and misusing the official position, Shri S. P. Sharma while sanctioning the loans to various borrowers, (a) did not obtain Search-cum- Non-Encumbrance Certificates from an Advocate of the Bank's approved panel, (b) did not verify value of the immovable properties mortgaged in the various Mortgage Loan A/cs, by personal inspections and confirming the same from the market sources, which were inflated by the Valuers in their Valuation Reports, (c) did not obtain complete chain of the Title Deeds and the affidavits from the owners of the immovable properties at the time of creating equitable mortgage, and (d) did not obtain completion letter / certificates Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RAHUL SINGH Signing Date:15.09.2025 16.37.37 LPA 64/2023 Page 2 of 30 from the concerned borrowers / engineers regarding completion of the various Housing Projects. ARTICLE OF CHARGE NO.3

In gross violation of the prescribed instructions, in sheer dereliction of duty and misusing the official position, Shri S. P. Sharma (a) did not obtain the required number of Post - dated Cheques (PDCs) from the concerned borrowers / mortgage loans to ensure monthly repayment of these loans, (b) handed over a cheque of a borrower to Shri jitendra Singh Sirohi who encashed the same for Rs. 35,300/-in the S.B. A/c maintained at the Andhra Bank, Sadar Branch, Agra, which was deposited by one of the co-borrowers, along with 9 other pre - signed undated blank cheques in a Housing Loan Account. in various housing ARTICLE OF CHARGE NO.4 In gross violation of the prescribed instructions, in sheer dereliction of duty and misusing the official position, Shri S. P. Sharma sanctioned / disbursed Consumer Loans to various borrowers for purchase of the Computers, without ensuring end-use of the Bank's funds. ARTICLE OF CHARGE NO.5 In gross violation of the prescribed instructions, in sheer dereliction of duty and misusing the official position, Shri S. P. Sharma unauthorisedly entrusted the work of Accounts Division to a designated Dy. Manager (P) of the branch. ARTICLE OF CHARGE NO.6 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RAHUL SINGH Signing Date:15.09.2025 16.37.37 LPA 64/2023 Page 3 of 30 In gross violation of the prescribed instructions, in sheer dereliction of duty and misusing the official position, Shri S. P. Sharma (a) sanctioned and disbursed housing loans to various borrowers despite the Controlling Authority having refrained him from making further finance under the housing loan scheme till rectification of the irregularities pointed out in the Special Audit Report, and (b) sanctioned a Mortgage Loan to a borrower, who had purchased a plot a day before sanction of the mortgage loan circumventing the instructions of the Controlling Authority regarding refraining him for sanctioning the housing loans. ARTICLE OF CHARGE NO.7 On account of the gross violation of the prescribed instructions, sheer dereliction of duty and misuse of official position on the part of Shri S. P. Sharma as per details given in the Imputations in support of the Article of Charges No.1 to 6 above, various accounts have turned to Non Performing Assets and become difficult of recovery. Thus, he exposed the Bank to a loss of Rs.59,24,245.88, as on likely 31.12.2006. financial By his aforesaid acts of omission and commission, Shri S. P. Sharma misused his official position, violated prescribed instructions, displayed gross negligence, acted otherwise than in his best judgment, showed lack of due care, devotion and diligence in discharge of his duties and failed to protect the Bank's interest, which constitute serious acts of misconduct, in terms of the Regulations 50 (1), 50 (3) and 50 (4) of the State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur (Officers‘) Service Regulations, 1979.‖ c. The disciplinary proceedings against the Appellant were initiated under Regulation 19(2) of the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RAHUL SINGH Signing Date:15.09.2025 16.37.37 LPA 64/2023 Page 4 of 30 (Officers) Service Regulations, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as ―Service Regulations‖). d. In furtherance of the said proceedings, an Inquiry Officer was appointed and upon investigating the matter, an Inquiry Report was submitted to the Disciplinary Authority (hereinafter referred to as ―DA‖) on 12.10.2007 wherein the charges levelled against the Appellant were held to be partly proved. e. Against this Report, the Appellant herein made his representation before the DA on 23.11.2007, however, the said representation was rejected by the DA vide Order dated 06.08.2008 (hereinafter referred to as ―Dismissal Order‖), whereby the Appellant was penalised by way of dismissal from services. f. An appeal was preferred by the Appellant against the Dismissal Order before the Appellate Authority, however, the same was also dismissed vide Order dated 30.07.2009, thereby upholding the findings of the DA. g. Aggrieved by the proceedings initiated against him, the Appellant filed the Writ Petition bearing No. 13764/2009, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide Order dated 14.05.2012. In the said Order, the learned Single Judge records that the Respondent Bank has erred in not supplying relevant documents along with the chargesheet to the Appellant, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. h. Impugning the Order dated 14.05.2012, the Respondent Bank filed an appeal bearing LPA No. 736/2012. The Coordinate Bench of this Court allowed the appeal vide Order dated 01.02.2013 setting aside Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RAHUL SINGH Signing Date:15.09.2025 16.37.37 LPA 64/2023 Page 5 of 30 the argument of the Appellant that the necessary documents were not furnished by the Respondent. However, it was deemed appropriate by the Coordinate Bench of this Court to remand the matter back to the learned Single Judge as he did not deal with the plea of the Appellant regarding the disciplinary actions being violative of Regulation 19(2) of the Service Regulations. i. An SLP was preferred by the Appellant assailing the Order dated

01.02.2013, which came to be dismissed by the Apex Court on

03.07.2013. By the said Order, the Apex Court has granted liberty to the Appellant to file a Review Petition of the Order dated 01.02.2013 before the Division Bench of this Court. j. Taking the liberty granted by the Apex Court, a Review Petition bearing No. 432/2013 was filed by the Appellant against the Order dated 01.02.2013, which came to be dismissed vide Order dated

09.05.2014. k. Since the Order dated 01.02.2013 remained unaffected, the matter was revived before the learned Single Judge as directed in the said Order dated 01.02.2013. The learned Single Judge has considered the matter only to the limited issue of remand i.e., whether the disciplinary actions violated Regulation 19(2) of the Service Regulations and the same was answered in negative vide Order dated

26.11.2015, thereby dismissing the Writ Petition. l. Aggrieved by the fact that the learned Single Judge did not adjudicate on the merits of the case despite several contentions raised before it, the Appellant herein filed an LPA No. 51/2016, which was allowed Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RAHUL SINGH Signing Date:15.09.2025 16.37.37 LPA 64/2023 Page 6 of 30 by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide Order dated 25.01.2016 for the reasons recorded therein as under :– records ―10. As far as the other ground that the merits of the enquiry proceedings and the charges were never gone into is concerned, the order of the learned Single Judge dated 14.05.2012 merely submission regarding the procedural lapse alleged against the bank. In para 6 the learned Single Judge recorded that he heard the counsels for the parties. After this length of time, it is not possible for the Court to go into as to what the learned Single Judge in fact did hear but what he applied his mind was only as to the question of procedural infirmity in not furnishing material documents. On that basis alone, the findings of the enquiry officer and the penalty imposed were the bank was set aside. Quite naturally, only aggrieved by this order – the appellant did not and could not have filed an appeal. The Division Bench remitted the matter. Although the bank would have us believe that the remand was limited to the question of Regulation 19 (2) nevertheless there is nothing in the order itself which precludes a consideration of the merits viz-a-viz the contention of the findings of the enquiry officer as accepted by the disciplinary authority. It goes without saying that the grounds urged before the Court of the first instance have to be gone into by it lest or the litigant who approaches the court would be prejudiced. In the present case, that seems to have happened, perhaps unwittingly.

11. In view of the above findings, this court is of the opinion that the petition has to be considered afresh on the grounds urged before the learned Single Judge as to the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority based upon the conclusions of the enquiry officer‘s report. The appeal, therefore has to succeed. W.P.(C)13764/2009 shall now be decided on the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RAHUL SINGH Signing Date:15.09.2025 16.37.37 LPA 64/2023 Page 7 of 30 merits as to the findings recorded by the enquiry officer and accepted by the disciplinary and appellate authorities ultimately leading the penalty of dismissal.

12. The appeal is allowed in the above terms. The learned Single Judge shall consider expediting and deciding the matter at his convenience preferably within six months from today ” m. In view of the foregoing, the matter was sent back to the learned Single Judge to adjudicate on the merits of the case i.e., the Appellant’s challenge to the inquiry proceedings. n. The learned Single Judge, while passing the Impugned Judgment, recorded that that the limited issue for adjudication therein is whether the inquiry proceedings initiated against the Appellant are perverse in nature or not. For this purpose, the learned Single Judge has dealt with every charge levelled against the Appellant and came to a conclusion that there is no perversity in the findings of the DA in the inquiry proceedings. The relevant portion of the Impugned Judgment is as follows – “94. In the backdrop of the above position, I do not deem it necessary to enter into Articles 4 to 7 of the Articles of Charge against the petitioner, as Articles 4 and 5 were relatively minor, and Articles 6 and 7 have essentially been proved on the basis of the conclusions arrived at with respect the earlier Articles of Charge. Suffice it is to state that, even on the findings with respect to Articles 1 to 3 of the Articles of Charge against the petitioner, within the parameters of the law that has developed with respect to interference, in in departmental proceedings, no case for interference can be said to be made out. The submissions advanced by the petitioner jurisdiction, with findings Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RAHUL SINGH Signing Date:15.09.2025 16.37.37 LPA 64/2023 Page 8 of 30 had been considered, in extenso, by the IO, and principles of natural justice have also been duly complied with. The findings of the IO stand affirmed by the DA and upheld in appeal. The contentions advanced by the petitioner have also been examined by the DA and the Appellate Authority. No procedural infraction can, therefore, be said to have occurred.

95. Submissions were also advanced, by Ms. Chatterjee, on whether a punishment of dismissal could have been imposed under the relevant Rules and instructions. That, however, is beyond the purview of examination by me, as I am bound by the terms of remand, contained in the judgement, dated 25th January, 2016, of the Division Bench of this Court in LPA 51/2016. A holistic reading of para 10 and 11 of the said decision, as extracted in para 8 supra, make it clear, without equivocation, that the Division Bench has, ex debito justitiae remanded the matter only because, at the prior stages of litigation, no finding, regarding the merits of the charges against the petitioner, as upheld by the DA and the Appellate Authority, was returned by this Court. The remand case for consideration of the petitioner afresh on the ground is urged before the learned Single Judge as to the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority based upon the conclusions of the enquiry officer‘s report. This, in my view, has to be read with the observation, in para-10 of the judgement, that there had been no ―consideration of the merits vis-à-vis the contentions of the findings of the enquiry officer as accepted by the disciplinary authority‖. The clear intent of the Division Bench was only to afford the petitioner an opportunity to try to convince the Court regarding the unsustainability of the findings, on merits, as returned by the authorities below, on the charges against him. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RAHUL SINGH Signing Date:15.09.2025 16.37.37 LPA 64/2023 Page 9 of 30

96. That, despite a valiant and unquestionably sincere effort, Ms Chatterjee has, unfortunately, not been able to do so, essentially because of the position in law as regards interference by writ courts with findings of the disciplinary authority, especially in the case of bank officials.” o. The Appellant’s grievance is that the learned Single Judge failed to consider the contentions raised by the Appellant regarding the issue of dismissal from service while passing the Impugned Judgment. p. The Appellant is aggrieved that the learned Single Judge vide Impugned Judgment did not consider or discuss on the issue of disproportionate penalty imposed on the Appellant while dismissing him from services. Hence, the instant appeal is filed challenging the Impugned Judgment to that effect.

3. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the dismissal of the Appellant from the services as a penalty cannot be imposed as it amounts to disproportionality. 4. It is submitted that the bank officials are subjected to two set of rules – one, the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur (Officers) Service Regulations, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as ‗the Service Regulations‘); and two, State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur Employees’ Pension Regulation, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as ―Pension Regulations‖). It is averred that the provisions of the Service Regulations kick in when the employee’s service is still in subsistence, whereas the Pension Regulations are applied to an employee who has retired from the services. 5. It is stated that the Appellant was subjected to dismissal from service as per Regulation 67(j) of the Service Regulations. However, the Appellant, Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RAHUL SINGH Signing Date:15.09.2025 16.37.37 LPA 64/2023 Page 10 of 30 being a retired employee, can be subjected only to the Pension Regulations and therefore, awarding a punishment outside the scope of such Regulations cannot be sustained. It is contended that the penalty of dismissal from service can be awarded only when the employee is still serving, however, given that the Appellant has superannuated, only two types of punishment can be inflicted as per Regulation 48 of the Pension Regulations – withholding/withdrawal of pension or recovery of pecuniary loss. However, the Disciplinary Authority, inflicted disproportionate punishment on the Appellant by dismissing him from service, which is not warranted for a retired employee. 6. It is further stated that the Respondent Bank vide letter dated

17.03.2011 had recovered the alleged loss from the Appellant as per Rule 12(2)(b) of the Payment of Gratuity to Employee Regulation, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as ―Gratuity Rules‖). It is submitted that the Respondent Bank having imposed a penalty of dismissal from services cannot further recover the loss as per the Gratuity Rules as it is implied that the retired employee will be forfeited from all service benefits accrued to him prior to his superannuation. It is stated that non-adherence to one set of rules amounts to perversity in imposing penalty on the Appellant herein. 7. Per Contra, Mr. Ankur Chibber, learned amicus curaie, submitted that the punishment of dismissal can be imposed on the Appellant, even though he is a retired employee, as the disciplinary proceedings were initiated before he attained his superannuation. The Appellant superannuated while the disciplinary proceedings were in continuance. It is submitted that merely because the Appellant is a retired employee, the provisions of the Pension Regulations will come into the picture. It is stated Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RAHUL SINGH Signing Date:15.09.2025 16.37.37 LPA 64/2023 Page 11 of 30 that the entire disciplinary proceedings, from the start to the end, were conducted solely in terms of the Service Regulations and therefore, any punishment inflicted on the Appellant will be in terms of the said Regulations and the same cannot be bypassed merely because of the Appellant has superannuated after the proceedings were initiated. 8. The learned Amicus Curiae submits that the disciplinary proceedings against the Appellant were initiated under Regulation 19(2) of the Service Regulations. Charges were also proved under Regulations 50(1), 50(2) and 50(4) of the Service Regulations, and the punishment of dismissal was imposed in accordance with Regulation 67(j) of the Service Regulations. It is submitted that given that the proceedings were initiated in terms of Regulation 19(2) of the Service Regulations, the Appellant will be subjected to the penalty mentioned under Regulation 67 of the Service Regulations. 9. It is further averred that the question as to whether an employee after attaining the age of superannuation can be dismissed from service was already answered by the Apex Court in the case of Mahanadi Coalfields Limited v. Rabindranath Choubey, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 470, wherein it was held that the punishment can be imposed after the retirement as per the relevant service rules governing the workmen. 10. It is contended that the Appellant can be dismissed from service as there is a legal fiction provided under Regulation 19(2) of the Service Regulations that for the purposes of continuance and conclusion of disciplinary proceedings, the employee is deemed to be in service. Therefore, the argument of the Appellant that he is a retired employee and Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RAHUL SINGH Signing Date:15.09.2025 16.37.37 LPA 64/2023 Page 12 of 30 shall be subjected only to the penalty of withholding/withdrawal of pension or recovery of pecuniary loss does not come into effect. 11. It is pointed out that the Pension Regulations will be applicable only when an employee falls within the ambit of being a “pensioner”, as prescribed under the Pension Regulations. He contended that the Appellant will not fall within the said ambit of being a pensioner as he is dismissed from services and therefore, not subjected to Pension Regulations. 12. Learned Counsel for the Respondent Bank supported the case of the learned amicus curaie and contended that the Appellant can be dismissed from service even after superannuation as Regulation 19(2) of the Service Regulations as the same lays out a legal fiction that for the continuation and conclusion of disciplinary proceedings, the employee is deemed to be in service. Given that the service Regulations specifically provided for, the Appellant is subjected to the dismissal from service as per Regulation 67 thereof. 13. Heard both the Counsels for the parties and perused the record. 14. Before proceeding any further, it is apposite to mention that the question which arises for adjudication in the present case is whether an employee who has attained the age of superannuation can be inflicted with the penalty of dismissal from service. 15. For the sake of convenience, the relevant provisions relied upon both the parties are mentioned hereunder:- i. Regulation 19(2) of the Service Regulations, which reads under:- ―19(2). In case disciplinary proceedings under the relevant regulations of service have been initiated against an officer before he ceases to be in the Bank's service by the operation of, or by virtue of, any of the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RAHUL SINGH Signing Date:15.09.2025 16.37.37 LPA 64/2023 Page 13 of 30 said regulations or the provisions of these regulations, the disciplinary proceedings may, at the discretion of the Managing Director, be continued and concluded by the authority by which the proceedings were initiated in the manner provided for in the said regulations as if the officer continues to be in service, so however, that he shall be deemed to be in service only for the purpose of the continuance and conclusion of such proceedings.‖ (emphasis supplied) ii. Regulation 67 of the Service Regulations reads as under:- ―67. Without prejudice to any other provisions contained in these regulations any one or more of the following penalties may be imposed on any officer, for an act of misconduct or for any other good and sufficient reason:- MINOR PENALTIES:- a) Censure b) Withholding of increments of pay with or without cumulative effect, c) Withholding of promotion. d) Recovery from pay or such other amount as may be due to him of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Bank by negligence or breach of orders. e) Reduction to a lower stage in the time-scale of pay for a period not exceeding 3 years, without cumulative effect and not adversely affecting the officers pension. MAJOR PENALTIES f) Save as provided for in (e) above, reduction to a lower stage in the time-scale of pay for a specified Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RAHUL SINGH Signing Date:15.09.2025 16.37.37 LPA 64/2023 Page 14 of 30 period, with further directions as to whether or not the officer will earn increments of pay during the period of such reduction and whether on the expiry of such period the reduction will or will not have the effect of postponing the future increments of his pay g) Reduction to a lower grade or post. h) Compulsory retirement i) Removal from service: j) Dismissal Explanations:- The following shall not amount to a penalty within the meaning of this regulation. (i) Withholding of one or more increments of an officer on account of his failure to pass a prescribed departmental test with the terms of appointment to the post which he holds: (ii) stoppage of increments of an officer at the efficiency bar in a time scale, on the grounds of his unfitness to cross the bar: (iii) non-promotion, whether in an officiating capacity or otherwise of an officer to a higher grade or post for which he may be eligible for consideration but for which he is found unsuitable after consideration of his case, (iv) reserving or postponing the promotion of an like completion of certain officer requirements for promotion or pendency of disciplinary proceedings. for reasons Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RAHUL SINGH Signing Date:15.09.2025 16.37.37 LPA 64/2023 Page 15 of 30 (v) reversion to a lower grade or post, of an officer officiating in a higher grade or post, on the grounds that he is considered, after trial, to be unsuitable for such higher grade or post or on administrative grounds unconnected with his conduct. (vi) reversion to the previous grade or post, of an officer appointed on probation to another grade or post during or at the end of the period of probation, in accordance with the terms of his appointment or rules or orders governing such probation: (vii) reversion of an officer to his parent organisation in case he had come on deputation; (viii) termination of service of an officer a) appointed on probation in terms of sub-regulation (3) (a) of regulation 16: b) appointed in a temporary capacity otherwise than under a contract or agreement on the expiration of the period for which he was appointed, or earlier in accordance with the terms of his appointment: c) appointed under a contract or agreement in accordance with the terms of such contract or agreement and; d) as part of retrenchment. (ix) termination of service of an officer in terms of regulation 20: (x) retirement of an employee in terms of regulation 19.” Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RAHUL SINGH Signing Date:15.09.2025 16.37.37 LPA 64/2023 Page 16 of 30 iii. Regulation 48 of the Pension Regulations reads as under:- “48. Recovery of Pecuniary loss cause to the Bank- (l) The Competent Authority may withhold or withdraw a pension or a part thereof, whether permanently or for a specified period and order recovery from pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary in any departmental or judicial proceeding the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence or criminal breach of trust or forgery or acts done fraudulently during the period of his service: loss caused the Bank Provided that the Board shall be consulted before any final orders are passed: Provided further that departmental proceedings, if instituted while the employee was in service shall, after the retirement of the employee be deemed to be proceedings under these regulations and shall be continued and concluded by the authority by which they were commenced in the same manner as if the employee had continued in service: Provided also that no departmental or judicial proceedings, if not initiated while the employee was in service, shall be instituted in respect of a cause of action which arose or in respect of an event which four years before such took place more institution. (2) Where the Competent Authority orders recovery of pecuniary loss from the pension, the recovery shall not ordinarily be made at a rate exceeding one-third of the pension admissible on the date of retirement of the employee: Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RAHUL SINGH Signing Date:15.09.2025 16.37.37 LPA 64/2023 Page 17 of 30 Provided that where a part of pension is withheld or withdrawn the amount of pension drawn by a pensioner shall not be less than the minimum pension payable under these regulations.‖

16. It is the case of the Appellant that only the Pension Regulations governs a retired employee and the same will be applicable to impose a penalty as specified in the Pension Regulations. The Appellant also contended that since the charges against him are proved, he is liable to be penalised only as per Regulation 48 of the Pension Regulations i.e., withholding/ withdrawal of pension and recovery of pecuniary loss. 17. The Appellant, being a bank employee, is subjected to two Regulations – one, the Service Regulations and two, the Pension Regulations. It is a matter of fact that the disciplinary proceedings against the Appellant have been initiated while he was in service, however, the order of dismissal has been passed after his superannuation. 18. For this purpose, it is apposite to reproduce Regulation 2 of the Service Regulations, which reads as under:- ―2(1) These regulations shall apply to all officers of the Bank and to such other employees of the Bank to whom they may be made applicable by the Competent Authority to the extent and subject to such conditions as such Authority may decide. They (2) officers transferred/posted/deputed outside India except to such extent as may be specifically or generally prescribed by the Competent Authority. (3) They shall, however, not apply to employees appointed/engaged in any country outside India and permanently serving there.‖ Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RAHUL SINGH Signing Date:15.09.2025 16.37.37 LPA 64/2023 Page 18 of 30

19. Similarly, Regulation 3 of the Pension Regulations reads as under:-

3. Application—These regulations shall apply to employees who,— ―(1) (a) were in the service of the Bank on or after the 1st day of January, 1986 but had retired before the 1st day of November, 1993; and xxx....‖

20. From a bare reading of the foregoing provisions, it is clear that the Service Regulations are applicable to those who are in service, whereas the Pension Regulations are applicable to those who were in service i.e., the retired employees of the Respondent Bank. Furthermore, it is pertinent to mention that under Regulation 2(u) of the Pension Regulations gives out the definition of “pensioner” which states that an employee eligible for pension under the Pension Regulations. 21. In the present case, the disciplinary proceedings under Regulation 19(2) of the Service Regulations were initiated as the Appellant was still in service at the time of issuance of chargesheet. The disciplinary proceedings continued after his superannuation and after findings have been recorded regarding the charges levelled against him, the Appellant was dismissed from service in accordance with Regulation 67(j) of the Service Regulations. Given that the Appellant was in service at the time of disciplinary proceedings initiation, he will be governed by the Service Regulations. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RAHUL SINGH Signing Date:15.09.2025 16.37.37 LPA 64/2023 Page 19 of 30

22. One other contention of the Appellant is that the penalty of dismissing him from service after his retirement cannot be imposed as the same cannot be effectuated, thereby making it redundant. 23. The said contention cannot be accepted as Regulation 19(2) of the Service Regulations specifically states that if the disciplinary proceedings in accordance with the relevant regulations of service are initiated before his services are ceased, the employee is deemed to be in service for the continuance and conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings. The provision creats a legal fiction that the employee will be deemed to be in service, even after his retirement, till such disciplinary proceedings initiated against him comes to an end. 24. The Apex Court in the case of the case of Ramesh Chandra Sharma v. Punjab National Bank, (2007) 9 SCC 15 observed that an employee, against whom the disciplinary proceedings were initiated while being in service, can be dismissed from service even after his superannuation and once dismissed, the employee shall not be subjected to penalty under Pension Regulations on the basis of “retirement”. The relevant paragraphs read as under:- “9. The questions which, facts and circumstances, arise for our consideration are—(i) whether, in terms of the Rules governing the terms and conditions of services of the employees of the Bank, it was permissible for it to continue the disciplinary proceedings despite the fact that the respondent attained the age of superannuation; and (ii) whether the High Court could have, facts and circumstances of the case, substituted the punishment imposed by the appointing authority and the appellate authority by its own. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RAHUL SINGH Signing Date:15.09.2025 16.37.37 LPA 64/2023 Page 20 of 30

13. The question as to whether a departmental proceeding can continue despite the delinquent officer's reaching the age of superannuation would depend upon the applicability of the extant rules. It may be true that the question of imposition of dismissal of the delinquent officer from service when he has already reached the age of superannuation would not ordinarily arise. However, as consequences of such an order are provided for in the service rules, in our opinion, it would not be correct to contend that imposition of such a punishment would be wholly impermissible in law.