G K THIRUNARAYANA IYENGAR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) the sole question which arises for consideration in the instant writ petition is whether the respondents are justified in continuing the disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner even after his superannuation from service on 29th december, 1989, without extension of his services.

(2.) the facts of the case are few and not in dispute. The petitioner was employed as the manager of the davanagere branch of the second respondent viz., The Karnataka industrial co-operative bank Ltd. In exercise of powers conferred by Section 30-a of the Karnataka Co-Operative Societies Act, the third respondent viz., The special officer was appointed by the government to manage the second respondent after superseding the co-operative society. It is not disputed that presently the special officer of the bank is incharge of the management of the society.

(3.) a report was made on the 17th march, 1987 to the effect that five employees of the davanagere branch of the second respondent bank, including (he petitioner, had acted in a manner detrimental to the interest of the bank which resulted in monetary loss to the bank. Consequently, an enquiry officer was appointed to conduct a joint enquiry into the charges framed against the petitioner and others. The petitioner was suspended with effect from 21st march, 1987, but it appears that the enquiry commenced only on 25th may, 1988. It is not necessary for me to go into the question as to who was responsible for the delay in the conclusion of the enquiry. Admittedly, the enquiry was never concluded and is perhaps still pending. In the .mean time, the petitioner was to retire from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 29-12-1989. He appears to have written a letter earlier that he may be permitted to retire from service, and later followed up with another letter stating that he had no intention of continuing any further in the services of the second respondent and that upon his retirement, his claims must be settled. By communication, dated 28-11-1989 the second respondent replied by saying that though the petitioner will be retiring on 29-12-1989 and formal orders will be issued shortly, his retirement benefits will not be paid to him pending departmental enquiry and the civil and criminal proceedings. This is contained in the letter, annexurc-c, dated 28-11-1989. Thereafter, in normal course, the petitioner received the letter, Annexure-D , dated 28-12-1989, the relevant part of which reads as follows: