Bhupinder Singh Passi vs Punjab National Bank

2026:BHC-OS:10524-DB
907. WP 1074 of 2018 new 1.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 1074 OF 2018
Bhupinder Singh Passi
Age 60 years, Occupation : Retired
Formal General Manager of Punjab
National Bank and presently residing
at 501, Kartar Niwas, Plot 122,
Sher-e-Punjab Society,
Andheri (East), Mumbai – 400 093. ...Petitioner
Vs.
Punjab National Bank
A state-owned banking and financial
services company having its head office
at Plot 4, Sector 10, Dwarka, New Delhi
- 110 075 and a zonal office at Dalamal
th
House, 11 floor, Nariman Point,
Mumbai – 400 021. ...Respondent
*
Mr. Akash Menon with Ms. Isha Porje - Advocate for the Petitioner
Mr. Vishal Kanade with Mr. Anant Upadhyay i/by ANP Chambers - -
for the Respondent
*
CORAM : S. M. MODAK AND
SANDEEP V. MARNE, JJ.
th
RESERVED ON : 26 MARCH 2026
th
PRONOUNCED ON : 24 APRIL 2026
JUDGMENT (PER S. M. MODAK, J.) :-
1. The issues involved in this petition are, ‘ Whether disciplinary
Digitally signed
by SEEMA
KSHITIJ
YELKAR
Date:
2026.04.24
15:58:26 +0530
SEEMA
KSHITIJ
YELKAR
Seema
1/21
::: Uploaded on - 24/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2026 16:14:21 :::

907. WP 1074 of 2018 new 1.doc

enquiry can be initiated under Discipline and Appeal Regulations
against an officer, who has retired on superannuation ?’ and ‘ whether
the disciplinary proceedings commence with issuance of a show cause
notice or they commence only on issuance of a memorandum of
charge-sheet?’.
2. After hearing the submission advanced by both sides, this Court
th
as per order dated 18 April 2018, directed Respondents “ not to
proceed with disciplinary enquiry further ” till the next date. Thereafter
for several reasons, since 2018 this petition was pending. We are not
going into reasons for its pendency, but when this petition was placed
th
before us on 25 March 2026, by consent, it was decided to hear the
petition finally at an admission stage.
3. That is how we have heard, learned advocate Shri Akash Menon
for the Petitioner and learned advocate Shri Kanade for Respondent-
Bank.
4.
Before going into the legal aspects, it will be material to record
few facts which are relevant for deciding the controversy. They are as
follows :-
Seema
2/21
::: Uploaded on - 24/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2026 16:14:21 :::

907. WP 1074 of 2018 new 1.doc

FACTS
(a) In or about September 2011, the Petitioner was posted as
Managing Director of Punjab National Bank
(International) Limited at London, United Kingdom. It
was wholly owned subsidiary of Respondent-Bank. His
deputation came to an end in and around May 2015.
Then he returned back to India.
(b) It was observed in December 2016 that there were
unusual large number of Non-performing assets
accumulated at Punjab National Bank (International)
Limited. It was noticed that they were opened during the
tenure of the Petitioner.
(c) As per Staff Accountability Policy issued vide circular
th
dated 29 October 2013, before initiating disciplinary
action, certain steps are required to be followed. It was
decided to examine staff accountability in those NPA
accounts.
(d) The Committee of five members was constituted. Report
was submitted identifying the irregularities/lapses in the
accounts and officials responsible for the same. 31 such
cases were identified.
(e) On the basis of report, explanation of the Petitioner was
th
called as per several letters, including 26 December
th rd
2016, 7 January 2017, 3 February 2017.
th
(f) Petitioner replied them vide his letters dated 8
Seema
3/21
::: Uploaded on - 24/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2026 16:14:21 :::

907. WP 1074 of 2018 new 1.doc

th
February 2017 and 20 February 2017 (ground is taken
in the affidavit-in-reply that the Petitioner deliberately
delayed in replying those letters because his date of
superannuation is on the forthcoming).
(g) The note was submitted to the Inspection and Audit
division. Staff accountability of the Petitioner was
nd
examined on 22 February 2017 in isolation, because
th
the Petitioner was about to retire on 28 February 2017.
(h) Involvement of the Petitioner was found in 17 out of 31
cases. The note was placed before disciplinary authority
and decision was taken to initiate the major penalty
st
proceedings after seeking 1 stage advice from the
vigilance department.
(i) First stage reference was sent to the Vigilance
th
department on 27 February 2017. However, vigilance
th
advice was not received till 28 February 2017. As
petitioner was about to retire on that date, notice was
issued to him along with annexures-I giving the
necessary details to show cause why disciplinary action
should not be initiated against him in terms of Punjab
National Bank Officers Employees (Discipline and
Appeal) Regulations, 1977.
th
(j) Retirement order was passed on 28 February 2017 and
it was made clear that disciplinary proceeding will
continue as if he was in service until the proceedings are
Seema
4/21
::: Uploaded on - 24/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2026 16:14:21 :::

907. WP 1074 of 2018 new 1.doc

concluded. This was done in pursuance to the
Regulation 20 (3)(iii) of the Punjab National Bank
(Officers’) Service Regulations, 1979. He was granted
provisional pension as he has opted to be governed by
Punjab National Bank (Employees) Pension Regulation
1995 He was disqualified from getting other retirement
benefits.
st
(k) On 1 March 2017, he was served with charge-sheet as
per Regulation 6 of Punjab National Bank Officer
Employees’ (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1977.
(l) He was also served with statement of Article of Charge
and statement of imputation of lapses.
(m) Vide order dated 9 May 2017, the disciplinary authority
appointed enquiry officer and presenting officer.
(n) The All India PNB Officers’ Association vide letter
th
dated 28 September 2017 addressed to the Managing
director and protested the action of the Bank to invoke
the provisions of Regulation 20 (3) (iii) of PNB
(Officers’) Service Regulation 1979.
th
(o) The Petitioner by his letter dated 28 September 2017
has also protested ‘ action of initiating disciplinary
enquiry against him and making request to release
retirement dues ’.
5. On this background, the present petition is filed for quashing
th
and setting aside Show Cause Notice dated 28 February 2017, order
Seema
5/21
::: Uploaded on - 24/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2026 16:14:21 :::

907. WP 1074 of 2018 new 1.doc

th
dated 28 February 2017 and quashing and setting aside the Charge-
st
sheet dated 1 March 2017. Writ of Mandamus is sought for issuing
directions to withdraw the disciplinary proceeding and to release him
retirement dues.
6. The Respondent-bank by affidavit-in-reply has opposed the
petition on several grounds. Grounds in nutshell are as follows:-
A) Show cause notice cannot be challenged because it does not
cause any prejudice to the Petitioner.
B) Though the Petitioner claims to have unblemished record,
there are two penalties of reduction by one stage for three
years and giving a note of caution to the Petitioner.
C) As disputed question of facts are involved, it cannot be
enquired in a Writ Petition. Though the Show cause notice
th
and charge-sheet were issued on 28 February 2017 and
st
1 March 2017 respectively, this petition was filed
belatedly in November 2017.
D) The allegation in the disciplinary enquiry involves
misappropriation of money of the public sector bank and
hence enquiry is required to be conducted in the interest
Seema
6/21
::: Uploaded on - 24/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2026 16:14:21 :::

907. WP 1074 of 2018 new 1.doc

of the public at large.
E) A reliance is placed on invocation of provision of
Regulation 48 of the Punjab National Bank (Employees)
Pension Regulation, 1995.
The Petitioner by filing an affidavit-of-rejoinder has disputed the
contentions raised in the affidavit-in reply. It is true the enquiry officer
and presiding officer were appointed. However, further disciplinary
enquiry could not be conducted in view of the order passed by this
th
Court on 18 April 2018.
CONSIDERATION
7. There is no dispute about the documents which are referred by
both the sides. The dispute is whether the provisions of Regulation 20
(3)(iii) of Punjab National Bank (Officers) Service Regulations, 1979
can be invoked after the officer is superannuated. The Bank has heavily
relied upon the said clause and there is also reference about the same in
th
the order dated 28 February 2017 thereby superannuating the
Petitioner. It will be relevant to consider that clause for the purpose of
better understanding it is reproduced below :-
Seema
7/21
::: Uploaded on - 24/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2026 16:14:21 :::

907. WP 1074 of 2018 new 1.doc

REGULATION NO. 20(3)(iii)
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.
8. The relevant portion is “disciplinary proceedings have been
initiated”. So the question is when it can be said that the disciplinary
proceedings are initiated. That is to say, the date when show cause
notice is issued on 28/2/2017 or 1/03/2017 the date on which charge-
sheet is filed. Both the events have occurred in this case. Show cause
notice was issued when the Petitioner was in-service and charge-sheet
was issued when the Petitioner has already superannuated.
9. This issue is squarely covered in the UCO Bank and Another Vs.
1
Rajinder Lal Capoor . In that case the departmental inquiry was
initiated after superannuation. Show cause notice was issued when the
officer was in-service. Whereas charge-sheet was issued after he was
1 (2007) 6 SCC 694
Seema
8/21
::: Uploaded on - 24/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2026 16:14:21 :::

907. WP 1074 of 2018 new 1.doc

superannuated. The disciplinary inquiry was concluded and the officer
was held guilty and he was removed from the service. When he
approached the High Court, the High Court found that the penalty
was disproportionate to the charges levelled against him. The High
Court converted into compulsory retirement. The Bank has filed
Letters Patent Appeal, but it was dismissed. That is how, the matter
reached to the Hon’ble Supreme Court at the instance of UCO Bank
(supra) . The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed it was not proper for
the High Court to reduce the penalty by exercising Writ jurisdiction
( para no. 16 ). However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court set aside the
penalty on different ground. The Hon’ble Supreme Court found that
the disciplinary inquiry was initiated when the officer was not in-
service but it was initiated after he got superannuated. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court found that this is violation of service Regulation. The
relevant observation is as follows:-
21. The aforementioned Regulation, however, could be
invoked only when the disciplinary proceedings had
clearly been initiated prior to the respondent’s ceasing
to be in service. The terminologies used therein are of
seminal importance. Only when a disciplinary
Seema
9/21
::: Uploaded on - 24/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2026 16:14:21 :::

907. WP 1074 of 2018 new 1.doc

proceeding has been initiated against an officer of the
bank despite his attaining the age of superannuation,
can the disciplinary proceeding be allowed on the
basis of the legal fiction created thereunder i.e.
continue "as if he was in service". Thus, only when a
valid departmental proceeding is initiated by reason of
the legal fiction raised in terms of the said provision,
the delinquent officer would be deemed to be in
service although he has reached his age of
superannuation.
About the stage when the departmental proceedings
are said to be initiated, it is further observed :--
“The departmental proceeding, it is trite law, is not
initiated merely by issuance of a show-cause notice. It
is initiated only when a charge-sheet is issued (see
Union of India V. K.V.Jankiraman) . This aspect of the
matter has also been considered by this Court recently
in Coal India Ltd. v. Saroj Kumar Mishra wherein it
was held that date of application of mind on the
allegations levelled against an officer by the competent
authority as a result whereof a charge-sheet is issued
would be the date on which the disciplinary
proceedings are said to have been initiated and not
prior thereto”.
Seema
10/21
::: Uploaded on - 24/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2026 16:14:21 :::

907. WP 1074 of 2018 new 1.doc

10. Thus, it is clear that when the disciplinary proceedings are
validly initiated then only the employer can take recourse to the
provisions of Regulation 20 (3)(iii) of the Punjab National Bank
(Officers’) Service Regulation 1979.
11. After this judgment was pronounced, the UCO Bank has sought
review of the said judgment and review judgment is reported in UCO
2
Bank and Another Vs. Rajinder Lal Capoor . In the said judgment
Hon’ble Supreme Court has emphasized on difference in between the
phrase “ disciplinary proceedings shall be deemed to be pending ” on
one hand and the phrase “ disciplinary proceedings have been initiated ”
on the other hand. The phrase disciplinary proceeding shall be deemed
to be pending finds place in clause no. (ii) of Regulation 20 of Service
Regulations, 1979. It seems that Regulations for UCO Bank and
Regulations for Punjab National Bank seems to be similar. For ready
reference, the Clause no. (ii) is reproduced below:-
REGULATION NO. 20(3)(ii)
Disciplinary proceedings shall be deemed to be
pending against any employee for the purpose of this
2 (2008) 5 SCC 257
Seema
11/21
::: Uploaded on - 24/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2026 16:14:21 :::

907. WP 1074 of 2018 new 1.doc

regulation if he has been placed under suspension or
any notice has been issued to him to show cause why
disciplinary proceedings shall not be instituted against
him and will be deemed to be pending until final
orders are passed by the Competent Authority.
12.
Clause no. (ii) talks of a situation wherein the officer is either
under suspension or notice is issued to him to show cause why
disciplinary proceedings shall not be instituted against him. Either of
the two stages is completed, then it is presumed that disciplinary
proceedings are deemed to be pending against him.
13. Now the question is whether this Clause can be taken recourse
by the Punjab and National Bank. The answer is certainly ‘ No ’.
Because Bank is fully aware that this clause cannot be taken recourse
to. That is why, in the retirement order they have not referred to Clause
no. (ii). It will be still relevant to consider the observations by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the review judgment. In clause no. (ii) the
words used are ‘ for the purpose of this regulation ’. Now the question is
“ this phrase has to be interpreted for the purpose of entire Regulation
including Regulation No. 20 (3)(iii) or it has to be interpreted in a
limited sense” .
14. In review judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court opined that
Seema
12/21
::: Uploaded on - 24/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2026 16:14:21 :::

907. WP 1074 of 2018 new 1.doc

‘ for the purpose of this Regulation’ means for the purpose of
considering the contingency covered under Regulation 20 (3)(i) of
Service Regulations, 1979. It will be relevant to quote Clause no. (i). It
is as below :-
REGULATION NO. 20(3)(i)
An officer against whom disciplinary proceedings are
pending shall not leave/discontinue or resign from
his service in the bank without the prior approval in
writing of Competent Authority and any notice or
resignation given by such an officer before or during
the disciplinary proceedings shall not take effect
unless it is accepted by the Competent Authority.
15. Clause no. (i) talks about pendency of disciplinary proceedings
against the officer who is in service and his resignation, leaving the
service or discontinuing the service by him. If such an officer wants to
leave the service in either of the mode mentioned therein, he can do so
but by taking prior approval in writing of the Competent Authority.
16. Embargo is applicable only when the disciplinary proceedings
are pending against him. For the purpose of explaining when it can be
said that disciplinary proceedings are pending against the officer, clause
no. (ii) is incorporated in the said Regulation.
17. It is true in the disciplinary proceedings, there are various stages.
Seema
13/21
::: Uploaded on - 24/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2026 16:14:21 :::

907. WP 1074 of 2018 new 1.doc

So to say there is stage of issuance of show cause notice, there is stage of
issuance of charge-sheet and in certain contingencies even the officer is
suspended during the pendency of disciplinary proceedings. It may
happen that an officer may choose to leave job, when the disciplinary
proceeding are pending against him. It is very well true that these
stages of issuance of show cause notice, issuance of charge-sheet and
whether to suspend an employee or not depends upon the facts and
circumstances. It is very well true that when charge-sheet is issued it is
presumed that the competent authority is satisfied that there are
materials to charge-sheet him. So that the disciplinary proceedings can
be conducted against him. It is settled law that the decision to issue
charge-sheet is always taken after considering the materials and after
applying the mind. So to say when the show cause notice is only issued,
yet the disciplinary authority has to apply its mind to the materials
placed before him. So when the disciplinary proceedings are at stage of
issuance of charge-sheet or on the stage of suspension, in such
contingency the officer want to quit the job, he has to obtain approval
of the competent authority. That is why clause no. (ii) is incorporated
so as to explain the contingency covered in clause no. (i). It will be
Seema
14/21
::: Uploaded on - 24/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2026 16:14:21 :::

907. WP 1074 of 2018 new 1.doc

material to consider the relevant observations in the review judgment.
They are as follows:-
15. Sub-regulation (3) of Regulation 20, however, places
an embargo on an officer to leave or discontinue or resign
from service without the prior approval in writing of the
competent authority and a notice or resignation given by
such an officer before or during the disciplinary
proceedings shall not take effect unless it is accepted by
the competent authority. Clause (ii) of sub-regulation (3)
of Regulation 20 must be considered from that aspect of
the matter. It raises a legal fiction. Such legal fiction has
been raised only for the purpose of "this Regulation" and
for no other, which would mean Regulation 20(1). The
final orders which are required to be passed by the
competent authority although indisputably would be in
relation to the disciplinary proceedings but evidently it is
for the purpose of accepting resignation or leaving or
discontinuing of the service by the employee concerned
or grant of approval thereof. Clause (ii) of sub-regulation
(3) of Regulation 20 in effect and substance acts as a
proviso to Clause (i) thereof.
18. In view of this interpretation, in order to justify the continuation
of the disciplinary proceedings, the Bank cannot take recourse to the
provision of Clause No. (ii) of Service Regulations, 1979. Because it
comes into picture only when the employee wants to quit the job
during pendency of disciplinary proceedings and not otherwise. For
the above discussion, the decision of the Bank to continue the
disciplinary proceedings against the Petitioner cannot be sustained in
Seema
15/21
::: Uploaded on - 24/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2026 16:14:21 :::

907. WP 1074 of 2018 new 1.doc

the eyes of law. It has to be held that disciplinary proceedings were not
initiated against the Petitioner when he was in service on 28/2/2017
(even though last day). It is for the reason the Petitioner has already
superannuated. In view of that the decision of the Bank to take
recourse to Service Regulation 1979 cannot be justified in the eyes of
law and the order and charge-sheet needs to be set aside. We are not of
the view to set aside show cause notice because bank was justified in
issuing show cause notice as the petitioner was very much in service.
We have not gone into issue whether the materials available with the
Bank was sufficient or not to issue show cause notice. Mr. Kanade
relied upon the observations in case of Kadirkhan Ahmedkhan Pathan
3
Vs. Maharashtra State Warehousing Corporation and Ors. . They are
not helpful to him because facts and the service regulations are
different.
19. It is very well true the learned Advocate Mr. Kanade in order to
justify the continuation of disciplinary proceedings, has relied upon the
provisions of Punjab National Bank (Employees) Pension Regulations,
1995. It will be relevant to reproduce the said clause.
48. Recovery of Pecuniary loss caused to the Bank
3 (2026) SCC Online SC 21
Seema
16/21
::: Uploaded on - 24/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2026 16:14:21 :::

907. WP 1074 of 2018 new 1.doc

1) The Competent Authority may withhold or withdraw a
pension or a part thereof, whether permanently or for a
specified period and order recovery from pension of the
whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Bank if in
any departmental or judicial proceedings the pensioner is
found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence or criminal
breach of trust or forgery or acts done fraudulently during
the period of his service;
Provided that the Board shall be consulted before any final
orders are passed;
Provided further that departmental proceedings, if
instituted while the employee was in service, shall, after the
retirement of the employee, be deemed to be proceedings
under these regulations and shall be continued and
concluded by the authority by which they were
commenced in the same manner as if the employee had
continued in service;
(2) No departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the
employee was in service, shall be instituted in respect of an
event which took place more than four years before such
institution:
Provided that the disciplinary proceedings so instituted
shall be in accordance with the procedure applicable to
disciplinary proceedings in relation to the employee during
the period of his service.
(3) Where the Competent Authority orders recovery of
pecuniary loss from the pension, the recovery shall not
ordinarily be made at a rate exceeding one-third of the
pension admissible on the date of retirement of the
employee;
Provided that where a part of pension is withheld or
withdrawn, the amount of pension drawn by a pensioner
shall not be less than the minimum pension payable under
these regulations.
20. Admittedly, when the charge-sheet was issued, the Bank has not
Seema
17/21
::: Uploaded on - 24/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2026 16:14:21 :::

907. WP 1074 of 2018 new 1.doc

taken recourse to the provisions of Pension Regulations, 1955, but the
charge-sheet was issued by quoting the provisions of Punjab National
Bank Officer Employees’ (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1977.
Now the issue is at this stage, ‘whether the bank can take recourse to
the provisions of Pension Regulations, 1995’. This regulation
empowers the Bank to recover the pecuniary loss from the pension, if
the officer is found guilty of grave misconduct, negligence or other
clauses mentioned in that Regulation. This action can be initiated if
such an officer is found guilty either in departmental proceeding or
judicial proceeding. One more reason, why the provisions of Punjab
National Bank Officer Employees’ (Discipline and Appeal)
Regulations, 1977 cannot be invoked against the officers who are
superannuated because Regulation No. 6 of Punjab National Bank
Officer Employees’ (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1977 lays
down the procedure for imposing the major penalties. Earlier part lays
down what are the minor penalties and major penalties. Now this kind
of penalties can be imposed only when an officer who is in service and
not otherwise. Admittedly, in this case the Petitioner is already
superannuated and we have already held that the disciplinary
Seema
18/21
::: Uploaded on - 24/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2026 16:14:21 :::

907. WP 1074 of 2018 new 1.doc

proceedings were not validly initiated and cannot be continued against
the petitioner. We find some guidance from the observations made by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of UCO Bank (supra). The
observations in para nos. 22 and 23 are relevant. It is reproduced below
:-
22. The respondent, therefore, having been allowed to
superannuate, only a proceeding, inter alia, for
withholding of his pension under the Pension Regulations
could have been initiated against the respondent.
Discipline and Appeal Regulations were, thus not
attracted. Consequently the charge-sheet, the enquiry
report and the orders of punishment passed by the
disciplinary authority and the appellate authority must be
held to be illegal and without jurisdiction.
23. An order of dismissal or removal from service can be
passed only when an employee is in service. If a person is
not in employment, the question of terminating his
services ordinarily would not arise unless there exists a
specific rule in that behalf. As Regulation 20 is not
applicable in the case of the respondent, we have no other
option but to hold that the entire proceeding initiated
against the respondent became vitiated in law.
21. Mr. Kanade has strenuously contended that mere quotation of
erroneous Regulation is inconsequential and the impugned charge-
sheet can be treated as having been issued under the Pension
Regulations, 1955. We are unable to agree. Even before the Hon’ble
Seema
19/21
::: Uploaded on - 24/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2026 16:14:21 :::

907. WP 1074 of 2018 new 1.doc

Supreme Court in UCO Bank (Supra). Similar folly was committed by
issuing a charge-sheet on 13.11.1998 under the provisions of Discipline
and Appeal Regulations to the officer who had superannuated on
30.11.1996. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has however held in para nos.
22 and 23 (noted above) that since Regulation 20 of Discipline and
Appeal Regulations had no application to superannuated officer, the
entire disciplinary proceedings stood initiated.
st
22. It is true that though the charge-sheet was issued on 1 March
2017, further conduct of disciplinary proceeding was stayed by this
Court, the Bank could not continue it. We cannot comment why this
petition was not heard earlier on the basis of circulation moved by
either of the parties.
23. We can only say that it is for the Respondent-Bank to take a call,
whether they can initiate disciplinary proceeding against the Petitioner
on the basis of said Pension Regulations. Ultimately, if they take a call
to initiate it, they have to satisfy themselves about fulfillment of the
criteria laid down in Regulation 48 of the Punjab National Bank
(Employees) Pension Regulation, 1995.
24.
With these observations, we are allowing the petition and passing
Seema
20/21
::: Uploaded on - 24/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2026 16:14:21 :::

907. WP 1074 of 2018 new 1.doc

the following order:-
ORDER
(i) The petition is allowed.
st
(ii) The charge-sheet dated 1 March 2017 and order
st
withholding retirement dues dated 1 March 2017 are
hereby quashed and set aside.
(iii) The Respondent is directed to release the retirement
dues which Petitioner is entitled within a period of 12
weeks from passing of this order.
25. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of.
(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.) (S. M. MODAK, J.)

Seema
21/21
::: Uploaded on - 24/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2026 16:14:21 :::