DILIP KUMAR PATIL Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the writ petition the petitioner, who had retired as the Branch Manager of Howrah District Central Co-operative Bank Limited on 28th February, 2006, has challenged the order of dismissal dated 5th July, 2011, being annexure P-12 to the writ petition. It appears that on 18th March, 2005 and on 15th February, 2006 two show cause notices were issued with regard to financial irregularities allegedly committed by the petitioner and on the day of retirement he was placed under suspension. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a writ petition, being W.P. 25272(W) of 2010, which was disposed of by an order dated 10th May, 2011 directing completion of the disciplinary proceedings within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the said order. Learned Advocate for the Howrah District Central Co-operative Bank Limited submits that as proceedings were completed pursuant to the order dated 10th May, 2011, the dismissal of the petitioner is just and proper. Moreover, it is submitted that the petitioner neither in the writ petition being W.P. 4635(W) of 2007 nor in the writ petition being W.P. 25272(W) of 2010 questioned the validity of the proceedings. Relying on the proposition of law in paragraphs 10 and 11 of the judgements in Union of India and Others v. R.K.L.D. Azad, 1996 AIR(SC) 845 and on paragraph 9 in V. Padmanabham v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others, 2009 AIR(SC) 2416 submission is no order may be passed as Regulation 29.10 of the Service Rules and Conditions for the Employees of the Howrah District Central Co-operative Bank Limited empowers continuation of disciplinary proceedings even after retirement.

(2.) In reply it is submitted that the judgements cited are inapplicable as therein the statute and the rules provided for continuation of disciplinary proceedings after retirement unlike the case in hand wherein the rules authorising the bank to continue with proceedings came into effect on 1st July, 2008, that is, after the petitioner had retired.

(3.) There is no dispute that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated by issuing two show cause notices on 18th March, 2005 and on 15th February, 2006. Thereafter, the petitioner retired on 28th February, 2006. Subsequently the petitioner moved a writ petition being W.P. 25272(W) of 2010 which was disposed of by an order dated 10th May, 2011 by directing completion of the disciplinary proceedings within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the order. Pursuant thereto the disciplinary proceedings were completed and the impugned order of dismissal was passed on 5th July, 2011. Now the question is whether continuation of disciplinary proceedings ultimately leading to passing of the order of dismissal is valid in the context of the Regulation 29.10 of the Service Rules and Conditions for the Employees of the Howrah District Central Co-operative Bank Limited. In my view, as the service rules and conditions relied on by the bank authorising the authorities to continue with the disciplinary proceedings with regard to the retired employees came into effect on 1st July, 2008 when the petitioner had already retired on 28th February, 2006, the order of dismissal cannot stand as with the retirement of the petitioner the master-servant relationship had come to an end. The argument of the bank that the petitioner did not raise the said question in the writ petitions being W.P. 4635(W) of 2007 and W.P. 25272 (W) of 2010 and before the authority conducting disciplinary proceedings is immaterial as the issue of jurisdiction can be agitated at any stage. So far as the judgements in Union of India and others v. R.K.L.D. Azad and V. Padmanabham v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others are not applicable as the authorities therein had proceeded on the basis of the statute and Rule authorising continuance of proceedings after retirement whereas in the case in hand the bank in order to fill up the lacuna had enacted the service rules with effect from 1st July, 2008 empowering authorities to proceed with the disciplinary proceedings after retirement. Therefore, the impugned order of dismissal dated 5th July, 2011, appearing at page 52 of the writ petition, is set aside and quashed. The writ petition is allowed. Accordingly, the Howrah District Central Co-operative Bank Limited, Howrah, the Chairman, Howrah District Central Co-Operative Bank Limited, Howrah and the Chief Executive Officer, Howrah District Central Co-operative Bank Limited, Howrah, the respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 respectively, are directed to disburse the pensionary and retiral benefits within eight weeks from the date of presentation of a copy of the certified copy of this order after deducting the benefits already disbursed. No order as to costs.