Disciplinary Proceedings Can Continue After Retirement | SC

Case Details: Virinder Pal Singh vs. Punjab and Sind Bank - [2026] 184 taxmann.com 444 (SC)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Manoj Misra & Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, JJ.
• Ms Udita Singh, AOR for the Appellant.
• Rajesh Kumar Gautam, AOR, Anant Gautam, Deepanjal Choudhary, Vibhu Sharma, Ms Likivi Jakhalu, Aman Gahlot & Rishi Chauhan, Advs. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the appellant, a bank officer, was served a charge sheet on the day he superannuated, alleging irregularities in loan disbursement.

The Disciplinary proceedings continued post-retirement. The Inquiry Officer held Charge No. 1 not proved, and Charge No. 2 (failure to ensure end-use of loan) partly proved, noting the absence of supporting bills for cash withdrawals up to about Rs. 27.25 lakhs, and that the account had turned NPA.

The Disciplinary Authority imposed a penalty of a reduction by three stages in the time scale of pay on a permanent basis. The Appellate Authority dismissed the Appellant’s departmental appeal.

In writ proceedings, the appellant contended that, post-retirement, only action under the Pension Regulations could be taken and that Service Regulations applied only to serving employees. The Single Judge accepted this contention, set aside the punishment order, and reserved liberty to the Bank to proceed under the Pension Regulations.

On the Bank’s intra-court appeal, the Division Bench, relying on Regulation 20(3)(iii) of the Punjab and Sind Bank Officers’ Service Regulations, 1982, set aside the Single Judge’s order.

It was noted that, if extant service Rules/Regulations permit continuance of disciplinary proceedings, initiated against an officer/employee before he had attained the age of superannuation, those can be continued and brought to their logical conclusion even after he had attained the age of superannuation.

Further, it was noted that, since there was no challenge to the indictment, a huge amount of cash withdrawals was allowed without taking supporting bills/receipts, a charge that the appellant had failed to ensure the end use of the loan stood proved.

Supreme Court Held

The Supreme Court observed that, since no argument was raised on the merit of finding that Charge No. 2 was partly proved, it was not appropriate to permit the appellant to question the merit of finding(s) that Charge No. 2 was partly proved.

The Supreme Court held that, since the punishment awarded was a reduction in pay scale by three stages permanently, such a reduction in pay scale would relate to the date the appellant superannuated from service, and it would not be difficult to implement such a punishment, as pension could be computed accordingly.

Therefore, the Division Bench of the High Court was justified in allowing the writ appeal by properly construing Regulation 20(3)(iii) of the Service Regulations, 1982.

List of Cases Reviewed

• Order of High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in LPA No. 370 of 2018, Dated 23.02.2023 (para 38) affirmed.

List of Cases Referred to

• Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, Mahanadi Coalfields Limited v. Sri Rabindranath Choubey [2020] 5 taxmann.com 916 (SC) (para 3)
• UCO Bank v. Prabhakar Sadashiv Karvade (2018) 14 SCC 98 (para 5)
• Ramesh Chandra Sharma v. Punjab National Bank 2007 taxmann.com 2216 (SC) (para 5)
• Allahabad Bank v. Krishna Narayan Tewari [2017] 1 taxmann.com 8827 (SC) (para 6)
• A.L. Kalra v. Project and Equipment Corporation of India Limited (1984) 3 SCC 316 (para 6)
• SEBI v. Roofit Industries Limited [2015] 63 taxmann.com 331/[2016] 133 SCL 1 (SC) (para 7)
• Chittoori Subbanna v. Kudappa Subbanna AIR 1965 SC 1325 (para 7)
• Canara Bank v. D.R.P. Sundharam (2016) 12 SCC 724 (para 8)
• Union of India v. Ram Karan (2022) 1 SCC 373 (para 11)
• Bank Disciplinary Authority-Cum-Regional Manager v. Nikunja Bihari Patnaik 1996 taxmann.com 1602 (SC) (para 19)
• Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial Bank v. P.C. Kakkar (2003) 4 SCC 364 (para 20)
• Mihir Kumar Hazara Choudhury v. Life Insurance Corporation (2017) 9 SCC 404 (para 20)