As per case facts, a Senior Manager applied for voluntary retirement, which was accepted effective January 2003. However, a charge memo alleging misconduct and financial irregularities was issued later, in ...
* THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN
+ WRIT PETITION NO:25019/2004
% 08.01.2026
# S.B.G. Sarma, E.G. District.
……Petitioner
And:
$ Bank Of Baroda Mumbai and
Others
….Respondents.
!Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr.K LAKSHMINARAYANA
^Counsel for the respondents : Mr.T.S.VENKATA RAMANA,
Mr.SATYANARAYANA DHARA
<Gist:
>Head Note:
? Cases referred:
1. (1995) 6 SCC 749
2. (2013) 12 SCC 372
3. W.A. No.1367 of 2024, dated 09.12.2024
4. 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3369
5. (1991) 4 SCC 109
6. (2007) 6 SCC 694
7. (2007) 9 SCC 625
8. (2016) 12 SCC 724
9. 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1327
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
* * * *
WRIT PETITION NO:25019 /2004
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 08.01.2026
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers
may be allowed to see the Judgments?
Yes/No
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be
marked to Law Reporters/Journals
Yes/No
3. Whether Your Lordships wish to see the
fair copy of the Judgment?
Yes/No
_______________________
CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J
Reserved on: 27.11.2025
Pronounced on: 08.01.2026
APHC010471822004
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
WRIT PETITION NO: 25019 of 2004
Bench Sr.No:-1
[3506]
S.B.G. Sarma, E.G. District.
...Petitioner
Vs.
Bank Of Baroda Mumbai 4 Others and Others ...Respondent(s)
**********
Advocate for Petitioner:
Mr.K LAKSHMINARAYANA
Advocate(s) for Respondent(s): Mr.T.S.VENKATA RAMANA,
Mr.SATYANARAYANA DHARA
CORAM : SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN
DATE : 8
th
January 2026
ORDER:
Writ petitioner initially assailed the charge memo
vide Lr.No.BCC/HRM/IL/95/DA190/7021, dated 26.08.20 03/
02.09.2003, issued by 2
nd
respondent purportedly in exercise of
powers under Regulation 45 & 48 of Bank of Baroda Officer
Employees’ Pension Regulations, 1995 (hereinafter, referred to
as ‘Pension Regulations’) r/w Sub-Regulation 6(3) of Bank of
Baroda Officer Employees’ (Discipline & Appeal Regulations),
1976 (hereinafter, referred to as ‘DA Regulations’) to be arbitrary,
illegal and without jurisdiction.
2
CGR, J
W.P. No.25019 of 2004
2. Subsequent to filing of writ petition, as the 2
nd
respondent
has passed order dated 21.04.2006 imposing penalty of
withdrawing 1/3
rd
of pension permanently as a measure of
punishment, petitioner sought for amendment of prayer by laying
challenge to the said order. This Court, by order dated
11.06.2008, passed in W.P.M.P. No.19752 of 2006, allowed such
prayer.
3. (a) Petitioner was initially appointed as clerk in the
1
st
respondent bank. Eventually, he got promoted to various
levels in the bank. Petitioner, during his tenure, had worked as
Senior Manager at Kakinada Branch during the period from 1999
till January 2003. He stated to have applied for voluntary
retirement on 20.01.2003 in pursuance of the scheme that then
existed. Though the respondents were supposed to act on the
said application within three months, as otherwise the same
amount to deemed acceptance, after repeated reminders with
delay, the said request came to be accepted on 1/2 of July, 2003,
retiring the petitioner w.e.f. 20.01.2003. Subsequently,
2
nd
respondent issued memorandum dated 26.08.2003/
02.09.2003 communicating statement of allegations and articles
of charges purportedly issued in exercise of Regulation 45 and 48
3
CGR, J
W.P. No.25019 of 2004
of Pension Regulations r/w Regulation 6(3) of DA Regulations,
alleging that petitioner while working as Senior Manager at
Kakinada Branch, reported to have committed certain acts and
deeds of omission and commission which amounted to
misconduct in terms of Regulations 3 and 24 of Bank of Baroda
Officer Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations, 1976 (hereinafter,
referred to as ‘Conduct Regulations’).
(b) The statement of allegations communicated had set out the
details of transactions in relation to allowing of credit facilities and
disbursement of funds to the named customers, which amounted
to serious irregularities and in turn, likely to incur financial loss to
the tune of 86.82 lakhs (approx). As petitioner was not diligent
and that his actions including omissions showing lack of due care
and caution were likely to result in severe financial loss to the
bank, the same stated to be qualified to be miscond uct
necessitating initiation of disciplinary action.
(c) Petitioner submitted statement of defense on 14.11.2003,
however, as the respondents continued to proceed with the
proposed disciplinary proceedings, he filed present writ petition
4
CGR, J
W.P. No.25019 of 2004
challenging the very issuance of charge memo to be illegal,
arbitrary and without jurisdiction.
(d) Pending the writ petition, based on the enquiry officer’s
report and after hearing the petitioner, the disciplinary authority/
2
nd
respondent passed order dated 21.04.2006 imposing
punishment of withdrawal of 1/3
rd
pension permanently.
Petitioner assails the very initiation of disciplinary proceedings
and also the consequential punishment order.
4. (a) The respondents have filed detailed counter inter alia
taking stand that petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy
of appeal and review against the impugned order of punishment
envisaged under Regulations 17 and 18 of DA Regulations.
Therefore, the writ petition cannot be entertained.
(b) Further that on two earlier occasions, petitioner was
subjected to disciplinary proceedings while in service, one
resulted in issuance of warning without any punishment, which
related to the allegations during his tenure at Allahabad Branch
and the second resulted in an order of punishment dated
09.10.2002, by which penalty of reduction to a lower stage in the
time scale of pay for a period not exceeding one year without
5
CGR, J
W.P. No.25019 of 2004
cumulative effect and not adversely affecting pension so imposed,
and attained finality.
(c) Later, though petitioner applied for voluntary retirement and
that he was allowed to retire, having found that he indulged in
further irregularities, which came to be highlighted while
petitioner’s request for VRS was pending consideration, he was
issued charge memo dated 26.08.2003/02.09.2003 and
consequential punishment order dated 21.04.2006 was passed
after due enquiry and providing sufficient opportunity to the
petitioner. Therefore, the penalty of withdrawal of 1/3
rd
pension
permanently admissible on the date of retirement, as imposed do
not suffer from any infirmity.
(d) It is further stated that the disciplinary proceedings have
been initiated even before completion of notice period of VRS i.e.,
29.01.2003, therefore, for all purposes, it has to be construed that
the disciplinary proceedings validly initiated against petitioner
while he was in service.
5. Heard Sri K.Lakshmi Narayana, learned counsel for
petitioner and Sri T.S.Venkata Ramana, learned Senior Standing
Counsel for Bank of Baroda, appearing for respondents.
6
CGR, J
W.P. No.25019 of 2004
6. This Court during the course of hearing, when it was
brought to notice that petitioner was not paid gratuity and also
commuted pension under the guise of pendency of the writ
petition, by orders dated 24.04.2025, directed the respondent
bank to pay the same together with interest @ 12% per annum
tentatively from the date of which aforesaid amounts fell due till
the date of actual payment. Thereafter, the respondent bank has
filed additional counter affidavit on 16.07.2025 inter alia stating
that in pursuance to aforesaid directions an amount of seven
lakhs was paid towards gratuity of which ₹3,50,000/- was
principal and the remaining to be interest assessed as per
Section 8 of Gratuity Act, 1972, which postulates that the interest
payable should in no case exceed the principal amount of
Gratuity. It is also stated that petitioner is being paid full pension
together with applicable dearness allowance, considering basic
pension of ₹9,509/-, however, as the pension regulations provide
for maximum condition of 1/3
rd
of basic pension i.e., ₹3,170/- with
corresponding commutation value multiplier which translates to
commutation amount of ₹4,22,244/-, as excess amount has been
paid, it is required to recover ₹8,49,560/- for the period from
January, 2003 to April, 2025.
7
CGR, J
W.P. No.25019 of 2004
7. Petitioner filed reply to the said additional counter. In the
said reply, petitioner has contended that the respondents have
not provided the working sheet as to how the amount of gratuity
of ₹3,50,000/- came to be determined and the reasons why the
amount was not paid immediately after his retirement, therefore,
the bank was not justified in trying to restrict the payment of
interest by applying Section 8 of payment of Gratuity Act, 1972,
which has no application in the facts and circumstances of the
case.
8. Even with respect to the commuted pension, it has been
stated that neither any worksheet nor any reasons were furnished
as to why the respondent had not undertaken such exercise, and
rather now it is trying to take shelter under the guise of making
payment of full pension. Even with respect to additional
retirement benefit of ₹1,49,970/-, though stated to be released, it
is asserted that no such payment has been paid till date nor any
proof thereof has been furnished in support thereof.
9. Learned counsel for petitioner mainly canvassed following
points:
8
CGR, J
W.P. No.25019 of 2004
(a) The very issuance of charge memo purportedly in exercise
of Regulation 45 and 48 of DA Regulations r/w Regulation 6(3) of
DA Regulations r/w Regulation 3 and 24 of Conduct Regulations
proposing disciplinary action against petitioner, who by then
ceased to be employee of the respondent bank, is clearly without
jurisdiction.
(b) In elaboration of said argument, it is contended that both
DA Regulations and as well as Conduct Regulations would apply
only to person who as on the date of initiation of proceedings
continued to work with the bank and that too, they contemplate
initiation of disciplinary proceedings for acts of misconduct as
envisaged therein.
(c) Inasmuch as petitioner does not fall within the meaning of
clause 2(i) and clause 3(j) of Conduct Regulations and DA
Regulations respectively, which defined ‘Officer – Employee’ as
petitioner ceased to be employee by that date, both these
regulations would have no application and the 2
nd
respondent had
no jurisdiction to proceed against petitioner under the said
Regulations. Insofar as clause 45 of pension regulations is
concerned, the same would apply only to a pensioner if prima
9
CGR, J
W.P. No.25019 of 2004
facie to be found guilty of grave misconduct and consequence
thereof clause 48 provided for recovery of pecuniary loss caused
to the bank on account of either departmental or judiciary
proceedings determining the pensioner to be guilty of grave
misconduct or negligence or criminal breach of trust or forgery or
for acts done fraudulently during the period of his service.
(d) It is also contended that the recovery contemplated under
Regulation 48 cannot be ordered by competent authority unless
Board has been consulted before any final orders were passed
for effecting such recovery.
(e) Learned counsel for petitioner therefore contended that
neither Regulations 45 and 48 authorized the 2
nd
respondent to
initiate disciplinary proceedings, much less punishment of
withdrawing 1/3
rd
of pension. He further contended that the
punishment imposed under the impugned order is neit her
traceable to minor nor major penalty as envisaged in DA
Regulations, therefore, even otherwise, the punishment imposed
is not authorized by Rules, hence is illegal.
(f) He lastly contended that the charge memo was issued on
the premise that the bank is likely to incur financial loss of 86.82
10
CGR, J
W.P. No.25019 of 2004
lakhs (approx), the disciplinary authority found that the bank
would incur a loss of approximately 11.63 lakhs which was also
not clearly stated as to how such loss was likely to result, in
absence of specific determination of pecuniary loss actually
caused, question of invoking Regulation 48 to recover such
pecuniary loss does not arise.
10. (a) Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent bank,
while reiterating the contents of the counter, contended that since,
as against the impugned punishment order, there is efficacious
alternative remedy of appeal and also review provided under
Regulations 17 and 18 of DA Regulations, petitioner, without
exhausting such remedies, cannot maintain the present writ
petition.
(b) He further contended that as necessary internal steps were
mooted which ultimately culminated in issuance of charge memo,
which requires certain prior banking formalities, merely because
petitioner was retired w.e.f. 21.01.2003, it cannot be said that the
DA and Conduct Regulations would not apply to petitioner.
(c) The allegations in the charge memo clearly constitute to be
that of misconduct, in particular as envisaged under Regulation 3
11
CGR, J
W.P. No.25019 of 2004
of Conduct Regulations, the bank was justified in invoking
Regulation 24 of the said Regulation, which otherwise envisaged
to proceed against the petitioner for breach of provisions of said
regulation, which deemed to constitute a misconduct punishable
under DA Regulations. Therefore, by invoking Regulation 6(3) of
DA Regulations, the disciplinary proceedings were initiated for
imposing major penalties. However, the disciplinary authority
during the course of enquiry though having come to conclusion
that the charges against petitioner were clearly proved based on
cogent evidence, has taken lenient view in imposing penalty of
withdrawing 1/3
rd
of pension permanently by taking lenient view.
(d) Therefore, it cannot be said that the 2
nd
respondent lacked
jurisdiction or the findings as arrived at were perverse. As an
alternative submission, it is contended that even if this Court
comes to conclusion that the punishment imposed by disciplinary
authority shocks the conscious of the court, the matter be
remitted back to disciplinary authority with a direction to pass
appropriate order as Courts cannot assume the function of
disciplinary authority to decide the quantum of punishment which
function is exclusively conferred on the competent authority. In
support thereof, reliance is placed on decisions of the Hon’ble
12
CGR, J
W.P. No.25019 of 2004
Apex Court in B.C.Chaturvedi v. Union of India and others
1
and Lucknow Kshetriya Gramin Bank (Now Allahabad, Uttar
Pradesh Gramin Bank) and another v. Rajendra Singh
2
and
Division Bench Judgment of the High Court of Telangana in Bank
of Baroda v. Gajjala Narender
3
.
11. Perused the record and considered rival submissions.
12. Petitioner was subjected to disciplinary proceedings at
three different points in time. There is no dispute that first two
disciplinary actions were while he was in service and there is
some amount of dispute coming to the third and pres ent
disciplinary proceedings, which is subject matter in the present
writ petition. The details and outcome of first two disciplinary
proceedings really have any concern bearing on the subject
disciplinary proceedings under challenge. Though petitioner and
also respondents tried to advert to the same, this Court finds it
unnecessary to delve into the same.
13. Petitioner worked as Senior Branch Manager at Kakinada
during the period from 1999 to January, 2003. At that juncture, he
had applied for voluntary retirement and the said request
1
(1995) 6 SCC 749
2
(2013) 12 SCC 372
3
W.A. No.1367 of 2024, dated 09.12.2024
13
CGR, J
W.P. No.25019 of 2004
eventually came to be accepted by the bank by its proceedings
dated 1/2-July, 2003, retiring petitioner w.e.f. 21.01.2003.
Petitioner has been issued charge memo dated 26.08.2003/
02.09.2003. There is no dispute on above events so far. Perusal
of the letter of acceptance dated 1/2-July, 2003 issued by the
bank would indicate that the request of petitioner for voluntary
retirement was accepted by the bank w.e.f. 20.01.2003, subject to
conditions set out therein. There is nothing in those conditions to
suggest the bank contemplated disciplinary action against
petitioner. Therefore, though respondents in counter tried to say
there was something in cooking and indeed appropriate action
was initiated to set in motion disciplinary proceedings, nothing is
placed before this Court except for said assertion and the letter of
acceptance referred to above speaks otherwise. So it is clear
that petitioner ceased to be employee of bank w.e.f. 20.01.2003
and that the disciplinary proceedings came to be initiated much
later.
14. In the aforesaid background, the legal submissions made
are required to be considered. In order to appreciate the
contentions, it is opt to notice relevant Regulations on the
subject:-
14
CGR, J
W.P. No.25019 of 2004
(i) Charge memo was issued purported to be exercisi ng
powers under Regulations 45 and 48 of Pension Regulations.
Section 19(2)(f) of Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer
of Undertakings) Act, 1970, empowers Board of Directors of the
banks in consultation with Reserve Bank of India and with
previous sanction of Central Government to make Regulations
with respect to establishment and maintenance of
superannuation, pension, provident fund or other funds for the
benefit of officers or employees of the bank. In exercise of such
powers, 1
st
respondent bank has issued Pension Regulations.
Chapter IX of said Regulations had set out General Conditions.
Regulations 45 and 48 read as under:
“45. Pensioner guilty of grave misconduct.- In a case
not falling under Regulation 44 if the Competent Authority
considers that the pensioner is prima facie guilty of grave
misconduct, it shall, before passing an order, follow the
procedure specified in Bank of Baroda Office Employees'
(Discipline and Appeal) Regulation, 1976 or in Settlement
at the case may be.
48. Recovery of Pecuniary loss caused to the Bank.- (1)
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
15
CGR, J
W.P. No.25019 of 2004
whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Bank if in
any departmental or judicial proceedings the pensioner is
found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence or criminal
breach of trust or forgery or for acts done fraudulently
during the period of his service: Provided that the Board
shall be consulted before any final orders are passed:
Provided further 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: Provided also that the 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. (Notified in
Government Gazette on 08/08/2017)
(2) No departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the
employee was in service, shall be instituted in respect of an
event which took place more than four years before such
institutions: (Notified in Government Gazette on
08/08/2017) Provided that the disciplinary proceedings so
instituted shall be in accordance with the procedure
applicable to disciplinary proceedings in relation to the
employee during the period of his service. (3) Where the
Competent Authority orders recovery of pecuniary loss from
the pension, the recovery shall not ordinarily be made at a
16
CGR, J
W.P. No.25019 of 2004
rate exceeding one-third of the pension admissible on the
date of retirement of the employee.”(Notified in Government
Gazette on 08/08/2017)
(ii) The 1
st
respondent likewise, in exercise of powers
conferred under Section 19 of the Banking Companies
(Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 issued Bank
of Baroda Officer Employees’ (Discipline and Appeal )
Regulations, 1976 and Bank of Baroda Officer Employees’
(Conduct) Regulations, 1976. The following Conduct Regulations
relevant read thus:
“2(i) “Officer employee” means a person who holds a
supervisory, administrative or managerial post in the bank
or any other person who has been appointed and is
functioning as an officer of the bank, by whatever
designation called and includes a person whose services
are temporarily placed at the disposal of the Central
Government or a State Government or any other
Government undertaking or any other public sector bank or
the Reserve Bank of India or any other organization but
shall not include casual, work charged, or contingent staff
or the Award staff;-
GENERAL
3. (1) Every officer employee shall, at all times take all
possible steps to ensure and protect the interests of the
17
CGR, J
W.P. No.25019 of 2004
bank and discharge his duties with utmost integrity,
honesty, devotion and diligence and do nothing which is
unbecoming of an officer employee.
(2) Every officer employee shall maintain good conduct and
discipline and show courtesy and attention to all persons in
all transactions and negotiations.
(3) No officer employee shall, in the performance of his
official duties or in the exercise of powers conferred on him,
act otherwise than in his best judgment except when he is
acting under the direction of his official superior.
ACTS OF MISCONDUCT
24. A breach of any of the provisions of these regulations
shall be deemed to constitute a misconduct punishable
under the Bank of Baroda Officer Employee’s (Discipline
and Appeal) Regulations, 1976.”
(iii) Likewise, the following DA Regulations, which are relevant
read thus:
(j) "Officer employee" means a person who holds a
supervisory administrative or managerial post in the Bank
or any other person who has been appointed and is
functioning as an officer of the bank by whatever
designations called and includes a person whose services
are temporarily placed at the disposal of the Central
Government or a State Government or any other
Government undertaking or any other public sector bank or
18
CGR, J
W.P. No.25019 of 2004
the Reserve Bank of India or any other organisation, but
shall not include casual work charged for contingent staff or
the award staff:
4 . PENALTIES
The following are the penalties, which may be
imposed on an officer employee, for acts of misconduct or
for any other good and/or sufficient reasons.
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 officer's 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 period, with
further direction 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
19
CGR, J
W.P. No.25019 of 2004
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, which shall not be a
disqualification for future employment;
(j) Dismissal, which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for
future employment.
6 . PROCEDURE FOR IMPOSING MAJOR PENALTIES
3. Where it is proposed to hold an inquiry, the Disciplinary
Authority shall, frame definite and distinct charges on the
basis of the allegations against the officer employee and
the articles of charge, together with a Statement of the
allegations, list of documents relied on along with copy of
such documents and list of witnesses along with copy of
Statement of witnesses, if any, on which they are based,
shall be communicated in writing to the officer employee,
who shall be required to submit, within such time as may be
specified by the Disciplinary Authority (not exceeding 15
days), or within such extended time as may be granted by
the said Authority, a written statement of his defence.
"Provided that wherever it is not possible to furnish
the copies of documents, disciplinary authority shall allow
the officer employee inspection of such documents within a
time specified in this behalf"
20
CGR, J
W.P. No.25019 of 2004
17. APPEAL (1) An officer employee may prefer an appeal
to the Appellate Authority within 45 days from the date of
receipt of the order imposing upon him any of the penalties
specified in Regulation 4 or against the order of suspension
referred to in regulation 12. Provided that the Appellate
authority may entertain the appeal after expiry of the said
period, if it is satisfied that the applicant has sufficient
cause for not preferring appeal in time.
18. REVIEW
Notwithstanding anything contained in these
regulations, the Reviewing Authority may at any time within
six months of the date of the final order, either on his own
motion or otherwise review the said order, when any new
material or evidence which could not be produced or was
not available at the time of passing the order under review
and which has the effect of changing the nature of the
case, has come or has been brought to his notice and pass
such orders thereon as it may deem fit.”
15. A combined reading of the above set of regulations framed
by 1
st
respondent bank go to show that, every officer employee as
defined under Regulation 2(i) & 3(j) of respective Regulations has
been regulated with a code of conduct during the employment
and performance of official duties. Such of those officer
employees who do not fall in line or deviate with the code of
conduct and commit breach of provisions of Conduct Regulations
21
CGR, J
W.P. No.25019 of 2004
would be deemed to constitute a misconduct punishable under
DA Regulations. The Conduct Regulations therefore clearly
envisaged what constitutes a misconduct calling for disciplinary
action. The DA Regulations however deal with the penalties to be
imposed on an officer employee for such acts of misconduct and
provide for major and minor penalties as set out therein. It also
specifies the procedure for imposing major penalties under
Regulation 6 and procedure for imposing minor penalties under
Regulation 8. Regulations 17 and 18 provided for appeal and
review against the orders imposing penalties. These two sets of
Regulations essentially govern the scope and ambit of
misconduct, penalty and procedure for initiation of disciplinary
action.
16. Insofar as Pension Regulations are concerned, the same
are envisaged for specific purpose of establishment and
maintenance of superannuation, pension, provident or other
funds for the benefit of officers and other employees of the bank.
The same does not contemplate any punishment or disciplinary
action by itself. However, under Chapter IX – General Conditions
are specified, which inter alia deal with withholding or withdrawal
of pension in certain scenarios. Regulation 43 empowers
22
CGR, J
W.P. No.25019 of 2004
competent authority to withhold or withdraw pension if the
pensioner is found to have convicted in a serious crime or
involved in criminal breach of trust or forgery or acted fraudulently
or found guilty of grave misconduct. Before such order is to be
passed under Regulation 43 to withhold or withdraw the pension,
Regulation 45 mandates competent authority to follow the
procedure specified in DA Regulation. The expression grave
misconduct falling in Chapter IX has been defined to include the
inaction or disclosure of any secret official code or password etc.,
as defined therein. It is no doubt an inclusive definition.
17. Regulation 48 empowers competent authority to withhold or
withdraw pension of any pensioner if in any departmental or
judicial proceedings such pensioner is otherwise found guilty of
grave misconduct or negligence or criminal breach of trust or
forgery or for acts done fraudulently during the period of his
service and such order of recovery should be made only after
prior consultation with the Board. Keeping in view the above
explained scheme in which the three sets of regulations operate,
the facts in the present case are required to be tested.
23
CGR, J
W.P. No.25019 of 2004
18. Neither the counter refer to any such prior approval of
Board nor any material is placed before this Court to show that
the 2
nd
respondent did seek such approval of the board before
passing the impugned penalty order. Further, it is well settled and
established principle of law that if a particular thing has to be
done in a manner envisaged, either must be done accordingly or
not at all. Therefore, even otherwise assuming that the
respondents were embarking on the enquiry as contemplated
under Pension Regulations, limited to the extent of withholding
and withdrawing the pension, the concerned authority is required
to follow the procedure in strict compliance with the manner and
method prescribed therein.
19. As seen from the definition of officer employee, there is any
amount of ambiguity that only a person who holds a supervisory
administrative or managerial post or any other person who has
been appointed and functioning as an officer of the bank alone
would qualify to be officer employee who is susceptible to be
proceeded under those regulations. There is no specific provision
as such in either Conduct Regulations, DA Regulations or Bank of
Baroda Service Regulations, making these regulations applicable
to the retired employees. In fact, the Bank of Baroda (Officers’)
24
CGR, J
W.P. No.25019 of 2004
Service Regulations, 1979, which were framed by the respondent
bank, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 19 r/w
Section 12(2) of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and transfer
of Undertakings) Act, 1970, which provided for certain terms and
conditions of appointment and service of officers in the said bank,
have been made applicable to the officers either working in the
said bank or those who have been posted and deputed to any
other post and service.
20. Regulation 20(iii) thereof specified that in case disciplinary
proceedings were initiated against the officers, even if such officer
ceases to be in service on account of superannuatio n,
nevertheless the disciplinary proceedings would continue as if he
was in service until the proceedings are concluded and final
orders are passed. Recently, the Hon’ble Apex Court in State
Bank of India and others v. Navin Kumar Sinha
4
, while dealing
with more or less similar scenarios had an occasion to survey the
relevant legal position and the law with regard to initiation of the
disciplinary proceedings against an employee post
superannuation or retirement by taking due notice of the
judgments rendered in cases of Union of India v.
4
2024 SCC OnLine SC 3369
25
CGR, J
W.P. No.25019 of 2004
K.V.Jankiraman
5
, UCO Bank v. Rajinder Lal Capoor
6
, Coal
India Ltd. v. Saroj Kumar Mishra
7
, Canara Bank v. D.R.P.
Sundharam
8
, UCO Bank v. M.B.Motwani
9
, which candidly held
that no disciplinary proceedings can be initiated after delinquent
employee or officer retired from the office on attaining the age of
superannuation. Further that the disciplinary proceedings are
deemed to be initiated only upon issuance of charge
memo/charge sheet, but not on issuance of show caus e
proposing departmental action. The following two passages of
above judgement would be opt for reference. Paras 21 and 31 of
the said judgment read as under:
“21. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in Canara
Bank v. D.R.P. Sundharam examined the meaning and
effect of Regulation 20(3)(iii) of the Canara Bank (Officers')
Service Regulations, 1979 which is pari materia to
Regulation 20(3)(iii) of the UCO Bank Officer Employees'
Services Regulations, 1979 in the light of the view taken
in Rajinder Lal Capoor (supra) and held that Regulation
20(3)(iii) is a stand-alone provision. By virtue of the said
provision, a disciplinary proceeding initiated by means of a
chargesheet prior to the retirement of a bank employee
5
(1991) 4 SCC 109
6
(2007) 6 SCC 694
7
(2007) 9 SCC 625
8
(2016) 12 SCC 724
9
2023 SCC OnLine SC 1327
26
CGR, J
W.P. No.25019 of 2004
would continue even after his retirement in view of the
provision contained in Regulation 20(3)(iii). In the facts of
that case, the Bench noted that disciplinary proceeding was
initiated by submission of chargesheet after the retirement
of the respondent. Therefore, while confirming the decision
of the High Court, this Court dismissed the appeal filed by
Canara Bank.
31. As has been held by this Court on more than one
occasion, a subsisting disciplinary proceeding i.e. one
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 (in
this case as per Rule 19(3) of the Service Rules). But 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.”
(emphasis supplied by this Court)
21. Therefore, the very initiation of disciplinary proceedings
against the petitioner, who admittedly ceased to be employee of
the bank w.e.f. 21.01.2003 is clearly without jurisdiction.
22. As this Court has expressed opinion that the very initiation
of disciplinary proceedings post retirement is without jurisdiction,
the contention of learned counsel for respondent bank that
27
CGR, J
W.P. No.25019 of 2004
petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy of appeal rather
than invoking writ jurisdiction pales into insignificance. It is trite
law that even if a party has an alternative remedy provided under
statute, it is no bar to invoke the jurisdiction under Article 226 if it
is demonstrably shown that the authority lacked jurisdiction.
23. Coming to the other aspect of imposing penalty of 1/3
rd
of
pension as a measure of punishment, as could be seen from the
Regulation 4 of DA Regulations, which is the only source of
power posed on the 2
nd
respondent to impose penalty of major or
minor in nature, clearly the one that has been now imposed do
not figure, therefore, as it is well settled proposition of law that the
authority has no inherent power to devise punishments, its own or
new punishments, which otherwise are not contemplated by rules
clearly violates Article 14 and therefore, is illegal and without
jurisdiction. Though learned counsel for respondent bank had
made an alternative submission that if in case it is found that the
penalty imposed is outside the statutory framework, inasmuch as
the disciplinary authority has found the charges to be proved by
recording cogent reasons, the matter should be remitted back to
the disciplinary authority for imposing appropriate penalty, since
this Court has already expressed opinion that the very initiation of
28
CGR, J
W.P. No.25019 of 2004
disciplinary proceedings against petitioner/retired employee is
without jurisdiction, aforesaid alternative submission deserves
rejection.
24. Even otherwise, only in cases where the punishment
imposed if found to be shockingly disproportionate to the charges
levelled, as this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226
of Constitution of India in the process of judicial review would only
confine to examine the decision making process and not decision
itself, matter requires to be remitted back to the disciplinary
authority for imposing appropriate punishment. Since this Court
has analyzed the scheme of pension regulations as well, it is of
the opinion that the general conditions stipulated under
Chapter IX only empowered competent authority to withhold or
withdraw the pension by making appropriate order and before
passing such order to follow the procedure contemplated under
the DA Regulations, however, the enquiry that is contemplated in
making the order of withholding or withdrawal should be in
relation to a case of serious crime or criminal breach of trust or
forgery or acting fraudulently or is found guilty of grave
misconduct.
29
CGR, J
W.P. No.25019 of 2004
25. The expression of grave misconduct as referred to in
Chapter IX, which is placed along with the other expressions
namely, serious crime, fraudulently, criminal breach of trust,
forgery, definitely stands on higher pedestal than the expression
‘misconduct’ as referred to in Conduct Regulations. Therefore, in
normal course, the disciplinary proceedings are initiated for any of
the acts falling within the expression misconduct as envisaged
under Conduct Rules, ipso facto would not entitle the competent
authority to initiate recovery under Regulation 48, rather, there
should be a specific enquiry and order as contemplated under
Regulations 43 and 45, which completely stand on a different
footing all together. Unless such exercise is undertaken and
appropriate orders are passed and the exact amount of pecuniary
loss caused is assessed, no recovery can be effected from the
pension. Further, such recovery of pecuniary loss can be made
by competent authority, preceded by prior consultation with the
Board, which is mandatory. Therefore, the impugned punishment
order passed by 2
nd
respondent neither satisfies the requirement
of Regulation 4 of DA Regulations nor qualifies to be an order
under Regulation 45 r/w 48 of Pension Regulations.
30
CGR, J
W.P. No.25019 of 2004
26. In view of the above, the issuance of impugned charge
memo and also the consequential punishment order are declared
to be illegal and without jurisdiction and accordingly, the same
stands quashed. The respondent bank is directed to release all
pensionary benefits on account of acceptance of VRS, including
that of pensionary benefits within a period of two months from the
date of receipt of the order, after adjusting the amounts, if any,
already released.
27. In the result, this writ petition is allowed. No costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending in this case, if
any, shall stand closed.
CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J
ss
Legal Notes
Add a Note....