MAHESH KUMAR SHARMA Vs. MADHYA PRADESH GRAMIN BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has filed this present petition challenging the validity of charge-sheet dtd. 27/5/2021 and the show-cause notice dtd. 15/9/2021.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed on 3/3/1984 on the post of Officer Scale JM-1 in the erstwhile Nimad Shetriya Gramin Bank. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Chief Manager and posted Chief Manager, Ujjain Branch on 24/5/2017. The Narmada Malwa Gramin Bank became Narmada Jhabua Gramin Bank in the year 2012 and thereafter the same was merged and named M.P Gramin Bank in the year 2019. The petitioner was served with a show-cause notice dtd. 14/11/2019 by the respondent whereby certain shortcomings were highlighted in the disbursement of the loan accounts there himself and the petitioner was asked to submit a reply to the show-cause notice. The petitioner submitted a reply on 30/11/2019 and thereafter the petitioner stood retired from service w.e.f. 31/12/2019. After retirement, the retiral dues of the petitioner were withheld for which he made a representation. After one and a half years of retirement, a charge sheet dtd. 27/5/2021 was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted an objection that after retirement, no departmental enquiry can be initiated against him under the M.P. Gramin Bank, Adhikari Avam Karmachari Viniyam 2010, (hereinafter referred to as Regulation of 2010) and thereafter, the petitioner has filed this present petition before this Court solely on the ground that under Regulation 45 an Officer or an employee who is under suspension on a charge of misconduct and who attains the age of superannuation, shall be deemed to be in service even after the age of superannuation for the specific purpose of continuation and conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings.

(3.) Shri Amol Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at the time of retirement, the petitioner was not placed under suspension, therefore, he cannot be deemed to be in service for the purpose of continuation of enquiry. Apart from this, there is no such provision for issuing a charge-sheet to a charge sheet yet in the regulation. Hence, the respondent has illegally and without authority issued a charge-sheet, which is liable to be quashed. After retirement, the petitioner cannot be treated as an employee/officer of the respondent/Bank.