P SUNDARASIVIDU Vs. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Parties and the factual position in both the writ petitions being same and both the writ petitions being otherwise inter-linked, shall be governed by the present decision.

(2.) The petitioner joined services under the Central Bank of India on 3.3.1958 in clerical cadre and in course of time he was promoted to the post of Scale-II officer and holding the office as Branch Manager. On 11.11.1996, the petitioner was transferred from Mandavalli Branch to Big Kancheepuram Branch and such order was served on him on 23.11.1996. On 26.11.1996, he applied for sick leave for a period of about two months with effect from 23.11.1996. However, in December 1996, a memo was issued to the petitioner for unauthorised absence. It appears that in early part of January 1997 a report was submitted by the Special Inspection team that some of the loan transactions sanctioned by the petitioner while he was the Branch Manager of Mandavalli branch were improper. On 20.1.1997, the petitioner applied for Voluntary Retirement and requested to waive the notice period of three months. On 22.1.1997, punishment of censure was imposed on the petitioner on account of his absence. On the said date the petitioner’s application for voluntary retirement was also forwarded by the Regional Manager to the Zonal Manager. The action of the petitioner in not joining at the place of posting was also brought to the notice and an endorsement was made that disciplinary action should be taken against the petitioner. The petitioner subsequently after the expiry of three months period, filed W.P.No.10725 of 1997 for issuing writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to release the terminal benefits on the ground that the petitioner was deemed to have voluntarily retired from service with effect from 21.4.1997, on expiry of three months period as per Clause 29 of the Central Bank of India (employee’s) Pension Regulation, 1995. While the aforesaid writ petition was pending, charge memo dated 18.11.1997 was issued to the petitioner relating to the alleged impropriety in the loan transactions in Mandavalli branch and also relating to subsequent absence of the petitioner. W.P.No.4787/98 has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the charge memo mainly on the ground that since the petitioner was deemed to have been retired from the service with effect from 21.4.1987, there was no jurisdiction to initiate a subsequent disciplinary proceeding. The subsequent departmental proceeding continued during pendency of the latter writ petition without prejudice to the contentions of both the parties as per the interim order of the High Court.

(3.) A contention has been raised at the time of the hearing that since subsistence allowance has not been paid, the subsequent disciplinary proceedings has become vulnerable.