J.B. CHAUDHRY Vs. INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition, the petitioner, who was an employee of the respondent No.1-bank, impugns the chargesheet dated 2.8.2012 basically on the ground that same could not have been issued after the petitioner had superannuated from service.

(2.) I have had an occasion to consider this aspect in detail in the case of Prof. Marmar Mukhopadhyay Vs. Union of India and Ors. in W.P.(C) No2566/2007 decided on 18.7.2013. In this judgment, I have given the reasons as to why enquiry proceedings can be initiated and continued even after superannuation of an employee. The first reason which I have given is that every entity has a right to withhold the amount lying in its pocket, and even appropriate the same, with respect to its claim towards an employee who claims amounts from it/organization/employer. It has also been held by the Supreme Court in its judgments in the cases of State of Maharashtra Vs. M.H.Mazumdar, 1988 2 SCC 52 and State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Brahm Datt Sharma & Anr., 1987 2 SCC 179 that there is no bar in initiating and continuing the disciplinary proceedings after superannuation of an employee. The following are the relevant paragraphs of the judgment in the case of Prof. Marmar Mukhopadhyay and the same read as under:-

(3.) The issue therefore in the present case, in my opinion, is squarely covered by my judgment in the case of Prof. Marmar Mukhopadhyay . Therefore, there is no bar on the respondent No.1-bank in initiating departmental proceedings against the petitioner even after his superannuation. Of course, the proceedings which will be taken will be to decide the issue of withholding or forfeiting any of the terminal benefits of the petitioner.