THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.251 OF 2006 DATED 15TH DECEMBER, 2010 BETWEEN N.Narsimha Reddy … Petitioner And The Commissioner for Co-operation and Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, and Others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.251 OF 2006 O R D E R The petitioner, a retired Manager of the District Co-operative Central Bank Limited, Nalgonda District, assails its proceedings dated 03.11.2005 imposing upon him a fine of Rs.12,000/- and withholding his retrial benefits. The main ground of attack is that the petitioner was permitted to retire from service on 31.03.2005 and therefore, it was not open to the respondent bank to take any disciplinary action against him thereafter. The petitioner was subjected to disciplinary proceedings while in service under memorandum dated 17.08.2000 on the ground that he had issued six false utilization certificates. He was called upon to submit his explanation thereto. Dissatisfied with his explanation dated 29.09.2000, the respondent Bank appointed an Enquiry Officer under its proceedings dated 06.02.2001. The Enquiry Officer, having issued notice of enquiry to the petitioner fixing the date of enquiry as 19.08.2002, was himself absent. It is the case of the petitioner that thereafter no further enquiry was held in the matter. While so, as he was attaining the age of superannuation the respondent Bank under proceedings dated 28.02.2005 unconditionally allowed him to retire from service. He was accordingly relieved on 31.03.2005. By its proceedings dated 03.11.2005, the respondent Bank stated that enquiry report dated 22.07.2004 was submitted by the Enquiry Officer holding the charges levelled against the petitioner to be duly proved and imposed upon him a fine of Rs.2,000/- per each case amounting to Rs.12,000/-. He was also held liable to make good the loss sustained by the Bank to the tune of Rs.1,40,558/-. By separate proceedings of the same date, the Bank adjusted the said sums, viz., Rs.1,40,558/- and Rs.12,000/-, against the leave salary and GSLI amounts due to the petitioner. It is stated that the sums so withheld have been kept in a fixed deposit in the respondent Bank. Sri T.Venkat Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, placed reliance on the Judgment of the Supreme Court in BHAGIRATHI JENA V/s. BOARD OF DIRECTORS, O.S.F.C.[1] in support of his contention that the disciplinary proceedings instituted against the petitioner lapsed upon his retirement from service in the absence of specific rules permitting their continuance thereafter. The Supreme Court, in the said decision, opined that in the absence of a provision which permitted continuance of the departmental enquiry after superannuation the employer would have no legal authority to continue with the disciplinary proceedings after the retirement of the employee. The Supreme Court observed that once the employee retired from service there was no authority vested in the employer for continuing the departmental enquiry even for the purpose of imposing any reduction in the retiral benefits payable to the employee. In the absence of such an authority, the Court held that the enquiry would lapse and the employee would be entitled to full retiral benefits on his retirement. As per Chapter XIII of the I.T. Award dated 28.05.1970 dealing with disciplinary proceedings, applicable to the respondent Bank, there is no provision authorizing the Bank to continue with disciplinary proceedings after the retirement of an employee. In the absence of such an empowering provision, it was not open to the respondent Bank to continue with the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and visit upon him any penalty or reduction of retiral benefits after he was allowed to retire from service unconditionally. The impugned order dated 03.11.2005 and the consequential proceeding of the same date effecting adjustment of his retiral benefits against the penalty and the amount of loss allegedly sustained by the Bank are therefore unsustainable. There shall accordingly be a direction to the respondents to release the amounts due to the petitioner towards his earned leave and GSLI kept aside in a separate fixed deposit in the respondent Bank along with accrued interest thereupon within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. -------------------------- SANJAY KUMAR,J 15th DECEMBER, 2010 PGS/VGSR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.251 OF 2006 15TH DECEMBER, 2010 [1] (1999) 3 SCC 666