TEJ KUMAR SETHI Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER was promoted as Officer Grade -I on 16.3.2006. He was charged on 29.4.2009 vide Annexure P -7. He retired after attaining the age of superannuation on 30.4.2009 and was relieved on 30.4.2009 itself. He also filed reply to the communication dated 29.4.2009 on 14.5.2009. The Managing Director of respondent No.3 - Bank informed the General Manager of respondent No.4 to initiate appropriate action against the petitioner vide letter dated 16.6.2009. Thereafter, the General Manager of respondent No.4 - Bank, vide his office order dated 3.2.2010 forwarded a copy of the resolution of the Managing Committee passed in its meeting held on 28.1.2010 to respondent No.2 requesting him to appoint a Senior Officer of the Cooperative Department to hold inquiry against the petitioner. Respondent No.2 on the basis of request made by respondent No.4 appointed Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Dharamshala as Inquiry Officer on 17.7.20 10. Petitioner was served with a memorandum on 4.9.2010 by the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies to appear before him on 15.9.20 10. Petitioner filed a detailed representation on 15.9.2010 and also appeared before him. The Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Dharamshala completed the inquiry and submitted a report on 23.10.20 10 to the Bank.

(2.) MR . Dilip Sharma has strenuously argued that there is no provision in the Service Rules for the Employees of the H.P. State Cooperative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank Limited (hereinafter referred to as the ˜service rules for convenience sake) notified on 18.6.1987 for continuation of disciplinary proceedings after the retirement of the petitioner. He also contended that respondent No.4 has not complied with rule 53 -A in letter and spirit. He further argued that the inquiry has been conducted by the Deputy Registrar in breach of mandatory service rules.

(3.) MR . S.C. Sharma and Mr. Ajay Sharma have argued that the disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner strictly in accordance with law. They also argued that in the absence of any specific provisions in the service rules for the employees of the Bank, the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal Rules, 1965 are applicable. In other words, their submission is that the disciplinary proceedings could be continued against the petitioner after his retirement. They have also argued that there is no illegality in the charge -sheet issued by the General Manager.