Judgment · High Court

These appeals have been preferred against order of learned Single Judge quashing orders passed by the appellant Bank directing that the writ petitioners will be deemed to be continuing in service after retirement and will not be ent itled to admissible service benefits and retiral benefits till charges levelled against them are disposed of. Grievance of the writ petitioners was that during tenure of their servic e no enquiry was held or initiated, but their retiral benefits were being held u p on their superannuation in purported exercise of power under Rule 46(c) of the Assam Co-operative Apex Bank Ltd. (Staff) Rules, 1980 (as amended). Learned Single Judge held that under the Rules, the disciplinary proceed ings can continue after retirement if such proceedings have already been initiat ed before retirement and recovery from retiral benefits is permissible only afte r an enquiry. This interpretation placed by the learned Single Judge has since b een upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of the appellant vide o rder dated 21.6.2011 in W.A. No.190 of 2011 (Assam Co-operative Apex Bank Ltd. V s. Sri Kina Ram Mech). Following the said order, we do not find any ground to in terfere with the impugned orders. Learned counsel for the appellant, however, submits that in the judgment s of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Brahm Datt Sharma a nd another (1987) 2 SCC 179; State of Maharashtra vs. M.H. Mazumdar (1988) 2 SCC 52; and U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. and others vs. Kamal Swaroop Tondon ( 2008) 2 SCC 41, on interpretation of pension rules applicable to the U.P. Govern ment and Central Government employees, it was held that recovery from pension or gratuity was permissible. The judgments relied upon are distinguishable as language of the Rules a pplicable is different. In the present case, there is no clear provision that en quiry can be initiated after superannuation. Rather, the applicable rule provide s for enquiry being continued if already initiated. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in these appeals and the same are dismissed.