RAVINDER GOSAIN Vs. PUNJAB & SIND BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In pursuance of charge-sheet of 20th December, 2012 penalty of "reduction by two stages in the time scale of pay permanently" has been inflicted upon petitioner after he had retired as General Manager of respondent-Bank on 31st December, 2012. Petitioner's appeal against aforesaid penalty stands dismissed vide order of 23rd January, 2017 (Annexure P-2).

(2.) The challenge to penalty order as well as appellate order by learned counsel for petitioner is on merits as well as on the plea of 'lack of authority' in imposing the aforesaid penalty. Learned counsel for petitioner draws attention of this Court to decision of the Supreme Court inUCO Bank and Ors. v. Prabhakar Sadashiv Karvade, in Civil Appeal No. 4725/2010 rendered on 20th May, 2010wherein it has been held that none of the penalties specified in Regulation 4 of the UCO Bank Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 can be imposed on an employee after his retirement from service, but by virtue of Regulation 20(3)(iii) of the UCO Bank (Officers) Service Regulations, 1979, disciplinary proceedings can be continued against an employee after his retirement, if they have been initiated prior to his retirement. Supreme Court in Prabhakar Sadashiv (supra) has made it clear that after an employee is retired, final order can be passed in relation to his retiral benefits with the exception that such an employee would be entitled to receive his/her own contribution to CPF.

(3.) Learned counsel for petitioner is unable to state as to whether the aforesaid plea was raised in appeal or not. Appellate order (Annexure P- 2) is cryptic one. Be that as it may. The parameters governing exercise of jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, as reiterated by Supreme Court inUnion of India v. P. Gunasekaran (2015) 2 SCC 610, are as under: -