IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO.1445 OF 2009 Dt.15.12.2009 Between: G. Atchutha Rao … Appellant And Union Bank of India, Represented by its Chairman and Managing Director Central Office, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Mumbai and others … Respondents Counsel for the Appellant: Sri S. Rajan Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 2: Sri C.R. Sridharan THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO.1445 OF 2009 JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy) Feeling aggrieved by order dt.24.11.2009 in Writ Petition No.16643 of 2009, the writ petitioner filed this Writ Appeal. The appellant is a retired employee of respondent No.1. After he retired from service, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him wherein four charges were framed against him. After submitting his explanation to the charges, the appellant filed Writ Petition No.16643 of 2009. The appellant pleaded in the Writ Petition that as he was allowed to retire from service, respondent No.1 has no power and jurisdiction to initiate disciplinary proceedings against him. The appellant also averred that even assuming that the power is vested in respondent No.1 to initiate disciplinary proceedings, the nature of the charges, as framed, does not fall within the provisions of the regulations under which such power is available to respondent No.1. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, the learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition. At the hearing Sri S. Rajan, learned Counsel for the appellant, reiterated the submissions made by him before the learned Single Judge. Having heard the learned Counsel, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge was correct in holding that under Regulation 48(2) of the Union Bank of India (Employees’) Pension Regulations, 1995, (for short, “the Pension Regulations”) respondent No.1 is vested with the power to initiate disciplinary proceedings against a pensioner, provided, the events, in respect of which the enquiry is proposed to hold, have taken place within four years before such institution. It is not in dispute that the events have taken place within four years and therefore the Pension Regulations are squarely attracted. The learned Counsel for the appellant, however, submitted that the nature of the charges clearly indicates that respondent No.1 has not initiated the proceedings under the Pension Regulations and has initiated the proceedings under the Union Bank of India Officer Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations, 1976. It is premature for this Court to go into the said aspect, because disciplinary proceedings are still pending and the appellant is free to raise this objection before the disciplinary authority. The learned Counsel further submitted that certain findings have been rendered by the learned Single Judge, such as, whether the act complained of against the appellant falls within the expression “grave misconduct”, which may affect the appellant’s interests in the enquiry. A perusal of the order of the learned Single Judge shows that the findings, if any, rendered were only in the context of considering the contentions advanced by the appellant and they were not intended to be findings on merits, so as to affect the disciplinary proceedings. Therefore, we clarify that the findings, if any, rendered by the learned Single Judge, while disposing of the Writ Petition, shall not bind the disciplinary authority so as to adversely affect the interest of the appellant. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Appeal, W.A.M.P. No.2999 of 2009, filed by the appellant – petitioner for interim relief, is dismissed. ______________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ ______________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 15.12.2009 bnr