HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU W.P.NO. 21160 OF 2001 DATED : 16-12-2010 Between: G L N Murthy …Petitioner And General Manger, Personnel & Administrative Dept. & others …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU W.P.No. 21160 2010 O R D E R: The petitioner was working as Assistant Manger in Indian Overseas Bank. He seeks Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents i n continuing the disciplinary proceedings pursuant to the charge sheet dated 18.4.2001 even after the petitioner being allowed to retire from service on attaining the age of superannuation as per order dated 17.7.2001 as illegal, arbitrary and to direct the respondents to pay the statutory retirement benefits. 2. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that while permitting the petitioner to retire from service on attaining the age of superannuation, the management cannot continue the disciplinary proceedings against him, unless there is any rule or regulation permitting to do so. In the letter of the bank dated 17.7.2001 addressed to the petitioner, it was specifically stated that the bank had decided to allow the petitioner to retire from service without prejudice to the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him in terms of regulation 20(3)(iii) of the Indian Overseas Bank Officers’ Service Regulations 1979. In that letter itself, Regulation 20(3)(iii) was extracted and it reads as follows: “The Officer against whom disciplinary proceedings have been initiated will cease to be in service on the date of superannuation but the disciplinary proceedings will continue as if he was in service until the proceedings are concluded and final order is passed in respect thereof. The concerned officer will not receive any pay and/or allowance after the date of superannuation. He will also not be entitled for the payment of retirement benefits till the proceedings are completed and final order is passed thereon except his own contribution to CPF” 3. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that the said regulation did not come into force as it was not notified. It was not pleaded by the petitioner that the above regulation 20(3)(iii) did not come into force as it was not notified. 4. Main grievance of the petitioner is that he was not paid subsistence allowance, even though disciplinary proceedings have been pending against him. The question of paying subsistence allowance to the petitioner arises only during the period of his suspension from service and by virtue of retirement from service, the suspension of the petitioner comes to an end. 5. The respondents’ counsel contended that as on today the disciplinary proceedings are completed and the management has passed an order of dismissal of the petitioner from service and that the petitioner also filed an appeal as against the said order of dismissal to the appellate authority and that therefore, this writ petition has become infructuous in view of the subsequent events. The respondents’ counsel placed copies of final orders in the departmental enquiry before this court. In view of the subsequent event, remedy of the petitioner is to question the said final orders in the disciplinary proceedings, in which proceedings he will be at liberty to question continuation of disciplinary proceedings against him after permitting him to retire from service. 6. In the result, the writ petition dismissed. No costs. __________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J Dt.16-12-2010 Mjl/*