Jagdish Lal Arora vs Bank Of India, Through Zonal ,Manager
- Court
- Delhi High Court
$~6
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
Date of Decision: 25 August, 2026.
# CNR No. DLHC010254802021
+ W.P.(C) 8724/2021
JAGDISH LAL ARORA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Arvind Kumar Singh, Advocate
with Petitioner in person.
versus
BANK OF INDIA, THROUGH ZONAL ,MANAGER
.....Respondent
Through: Mr. Rajat Arora, Mr. Niraj Kumar
and Mr. Sourabh Mahla, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV NARULA, J. (Oral):
st
1. Jagdish Lal Arora retired from Bank of India on 31 October, 2018
after a little over 36 years of service. A month before his retirement, the
Bank served upon him a major penalty charge-sheet concerning foreign
exchange transactions in the account of M/s Mine-O-Gold. The enquiry
began while he was still in service and was concluded just before he retired.
th
The punishment came later. By an order dated 13 May, 2019, the Bank
th
removed him from service. The order was affirmed in appeal on 5
th
September, 2019 and again in review on 12 December, 2019.
2. Removal carried a consequence beyond the disciplinary order itself.
Under the Bank’s Pension Regulations, removal entailed forfeiture of the
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 8724/2021 Page 1 of 22
Signed By:anita baital
Signing
Date:29.08.2026
15:28:53
Petitioner’s past service and consequently disentitled him to regular pension.
He was thereafter sanctioned compassionate allowance. The present petition
challenges the disciplinary action and also seeks full pension, leave
encashment and interest on the delayed payment of gratuity.
3. The challenge cannot, however, be answered in one stroke. The
disciplinary proceeding does not fail merely because the final order came
after retirement. Nor does the record support the Petitioner’s case that the
enquiry was a sham. Most of the findings of misconduct have evidentiary
support. One important finding, however, does not. That leaves the question
of punishment. It must be answered by what is proved, not merely by what
was charged.
Facts
4. The Petitioner was working as Senior Manager (Credit) at the Bank’s
New Delhi Mid Corporate Branch during the relevant period. M/s Mine-O-
Gold had credit facilities with the Branch and was engaged in the business
of gold and diamond jewellery. The controversy arose from a series of
foreign bills purchased or negotiated in its account.
th
5. The charge-sheet dated 27 September, 2018 contained one Article of
Charge, divided into eight components. Broadly, the Bank alleged that the
Petitioner had committed the following lapses:
(i) purchased or negotiated bills without obtaining a request from the
borrower;
(ii) failed to obtain exposure on the LC issuing Bank or approval of the
competent authority for negotiation of export bills under the Letters of
Credit;
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 8724/2021 Page 2 of 22
Signed By:anita baital
Signing
Date:29.08.2026
15:28:53
(iii) exceeded the Branch’s delegated authority while negotiating five bills;
(iv) overlooked a material clause in the Letters of Credit;
(v) acted on messages that had not been authenticated in the prescribed
manner;
(vi) repeatedly extended the due dates of two negotiated bills without
proper justification or approval of the competent authority;
(vii) enhanced the Foreign Bills Purchased [“FBP”] limit beyond the
sanctioned limit and purchased or negotiated bills without approval of the
competent authority; and
(viii) purchased or negotiated four bills where the documents had been sent
directly by the exporter to the buyer, without the requisite request or
approval.
6. A departmental enquiry followed. The preliminary hearing was held
th th th th nd
on 12 October, 2018. Regular hearings were held on 15 , 16 , 17 , 22
rd
and 23 October, 2018. The Petitioner was assisted by a Defence Assistant,
cross-examined the management witness and relied upon documents in
defence. The Presenting Officer and the defence thereafter submitted their
written briefs.
th
7. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 30 October, 2018.
Charges (ii), (iii), (iv), (vi) and (vii) were held proved. Charges (i), (v) and
(viii) were held partly proved.
th
8. Meanwhile, the Petitioner was nearing superannuation. On 24
October, 2018, the competent authority invoked Regulation 20(3)(iii) of the
Bank of India (Officers’) Service Regulations, 1979. The order recorded that
st
the Petitioner would cease to be in service on 31 October, 2018 upon
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 8724/2021 Page 3 of 22
Signed By:anita baital
Signing
Date:29.08.2026
15:28:53
superannuation; however, the disciplinary proceeding already initiated
against him would continue, “as if he is in service”, until its conclusion and
the passing of a final order. Except for his own contribution to the provident
fund, his retirement benefits were directed to remain withheld till then.
9. The Disciplinary Authority disagreed with the Inquiry Officer’s
conclusion that Charges (i), (v) and (viii) were only partly proved. It
furnished its tentative reasons for disagreement to the Petitioner, who
nd
submitted his representation on 2 January, 2019. After considering the
representation, the Disciplinary Authority held all eight components of the
th
charge proved and, by order dated 13 May, 2019, imposed the major
penalty of “removal from service which shall not be a disqualification for
future employment” under Regulation 4(i) of the Bank of India Officer
Employees’ (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976.
th
10. The Petitioner’s appeal was dismissed on 5 September, 2019. The
Appellate Authority found no reason to interfere with the penalty. The
th
Reviewing Authority reached the same conclusion on 12 December, 2019.
11. The penalty also had consequences for the Petitioner’s retiral dues.
His provident fund was released upon superannuation and gratuity followed
th
on 30 May, 2019, after the disciplinary proceeding ended. Regular pension
was not sanctioned; following his removal, the Bank instead granted
st
compassionate allowance, with arrears calculated from 1 November, 2018.
th
Leave encashment was initially credited on 26 November, 2018, but was
reversed on 4th December, 2018 and has remained unpaid.
Submissions
12. Mr. Arvind Kumar Singh, counsel for the Petitioner, assails the
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 8724/2021 Page 4 of 22
Signed By:anita baital
Signing
Date:29.08.2026
15:28:53
disciplinary action on four broad grounds. First, he submits that after the
Petitioner had superannuated, the Bank could not impose the penalty of
removal from service. Second, the enquiry, conducted in the weeks
immediately preceding superannuation, was hurried and denied the
Petitioner a reasonable opportunity of defence. Third, the findings are said to
have overlooked material documents placed by the Petitioner before the
Inquiry Officer. Fourth, the penalty is assailed as wholly disproportionate,
particularly when other officers connected with the same account were
visited only with censure, caution, or closure of proceedings. Mr. Singh
further relies on the Petitioner’s unblemished service of over 36 years and
the absence of any allegation of misappropriation, personal gain or collusion
with the borrower. On retiral dues, he claims provisional pension for the
period during which the disciplinary proceedings remained pending after
superannuation, full pension thereafter, leave encashment, and interest on
the delayed payment of gratuity.
13. Mr. Rajat Arora, counsel for the Bank, supports the disciplinary
action. He submits that the charge-sheet was issued before the Petitioner’s
superannuation and that Regulation 20(3)(iii) expressly permitted the
proceeding to continue to its conclusion thereafter. He disputes any denial of
reasonable opportunity, pointing out that the Petitioner participated
throughout with a Defence Assistant, cross-examined the management
witness, produced documents, and submitted a written brief, without raising
any contemporaneous objection to the conduct of the enquiry. On parity,
st
counsel relies on the affidavit filed pursuant to the order dated 21 October,
2024. Mr. Arora contends that the Petitioner directly handled the account
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 8724/2021 Page 5 of 22
Signed By:anita baital
Signing
Date:29.08.2026
15:28:53
and the foreign exchange transactions in question, whereas the other
employees either had limited roles in particular transactions or were
proceeded against only for supervisory lapses. The difference in punishment,
it is submitted, reflects that difference in responsibility. Mr. Arora also relies
on the applicable Service and Pension Regulations to support the Bank’s
stand on pension, leave encashment, and other retiral benefits.
Analysis
Authority to continue proceedings after superannuation
14. The Petitioner first contends that the Bank had no authority to impose
st
the penalty of removal after he had superannuated on 31 October, 2018.
This contention has to be examined in light of Regulation 20(3)(iii) of the
Bank of India (Officers’) Service Regulations, 1979.
15. Regulation 20(3)(iii) applies where disciplinary proceedings have
been initiated before an officer ceases to be in service. In such a case, the
officer may retire on superannuation, but the proceedings continue as if he
were in service until they are concluded and a final order is passed. The
th
charge-sheet in the present case was issued on 27 September, 2018. The
th
Bank’s order dated 24 October, 2018 continued the proceeding on that
basis.
1
16. UCO Bank v. Rajinder Lal Capoor , does not assist the Petitioner.
The charge-sheet there was issued after the employee had retired. The
Supreme Court held that the legal fiction under Regulation 20(3)(iii) could
apply only where disciplinary proceedings had been initiated before
cessation of service. In the present case, the charge-sheet was issued before
1
(2007) 6 SCC 694.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 8724/2021 Page 6 of 22
Signed By:anita baital
Signing
Date:29.08.2026
15:28:53
the Petitioner’s superannuation.
17. The legal position has now been put beyond doubt in Virinder Pal
2
Singh v. Punjab & Sind Bank. Referring to the decisions in Ramesh
3
Chandra Sharma v. Punjab National Bank , and the later three-Judge
4
Bench decision in Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. v. Rabindranath Choubey ,
the Supreme Court held that where the applicable Service Regulations
permit continuance of disciplinary proceedings initiated before
superannuation, such proceedings may be continued and brought to their
logical conclusion even after retirement.
18. The penalty order is therefore not without jurisdiction merely because
it was passed after the Petitioner’s superannuation.
The enquiry
19. The fact that the enquiry moved quickly does not, by itself, make it
unfair. The relevant question is whether the Petitioner was denied reasonable
time, material, or opportunity to meet the charge. The record does not show
that. There was a preliminary hearing, five regular hearings, assistance of a
Defence Assistant, inspection and production of documents, cross-
examination of the management witness, and a written brief by the defence.
20. What the Petitioner said at the close of the enquiry is also significant.
When asked whether he wished to add anything beyond his written reply
and what had transpired during the hearings, he stated:
“Sir I am grateful for conducting impartial inquiry in cordial manner and I
got all opportunity to present my views.”
2
2026 INSC 266.
3
(2007) 9 SCC 15.
4
(2020) 18 SCC 71.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 8724/2021 Page 7 of 22
Signed By:anita baital
Signing
Date:29.08.2026
15:28:53
21. The enquiry was thereafter closed. At no point then did the Petitioner
complain that he had been denied time, material, or opportunity to defend
himself.
22. That contemporaneous statement undermines the subsequent plea of
denial of adequate opportunity. Nor has the Petitioner identified any
necessary document that was withheld or demonstrated any specific
prejudice arising from the manner or pace of the enquiry.
23. The disagreement of the Disciplinary Authority with three findings
also suffers from no procedural defect. The Inquiry Officer’s view is not
binding upon the Disciplinary Authority. What Punjab National Bank v.
5
Kunj Behari Misra , requires is that, where the disciplinary authority
proposes to disagree with a finding favourable to the delinquent, its reasons
for disagreement must remain tentative and the delinquent must be afforded
an opportunity to represent against them before a final finding on the charge
is recorded. That requirement was met here. The disagreement note was
furnished to the Petitioner and his response was considered before the
disciplinary authority recorded its final conclusion.
24. This Court does not reappraise the Bank’s assessment of the
transactions as an appellate authority. A bank officer is required to act
within the limits of the authority delegated to him and in accordance with
the safeguards governing banking operations. As reiterated in Virinder Pal
Singh , a breach of those requirements may constitute misconduct even in
the absence of any proved financial loss to the Bank.
25. The findings need closer examination because the Petitioner’s defence
5
(1998) 7 SCC 84.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 8724/2021 Page 8 of 22
Signed By:anita baital
Signing
Date:29.08.2026
15:28:53
th
was not a bare denial. In his reply dated 8 October, 2018, he acknowledged
that exposure on the LC issuing Bank had not been obtained, attributing the
omission to heavy workload and paucity of time and seeking condonation.
On approval for negotiation, he stated that the transactions were known to
the Branch Head and were reflected in the daily, monthly and quarterly
statements, as well as in the jotting of advances. He nevertheless
acknowledged that formal approval from the competent authority had not
been obtained, describing it as an “inadvertent omission.” On scrutiny of the
LCs, he accepted that the onerous clause had escaped notice under work
pressure, though he added that steps were later taken to have it amended. He
also did not deny extensions of the due dates; his explanation was that the
overseas buyers were facing difficulties and that approval was subsequently
sought.
26. Charge (ii) therefore had an evidentiary basis. The Bank’s Branch
Certificate and the management witness both stated that exposure on the LC
issuing Bank and approval of the competent authority for negotiation were
not found on record. The Petitioner relied on country-risk statements, day-
end exceptional transaction reports and other returns bearing the signatures
or initials of senior officers to show that the Branch Head and Chief
Manager knew of the transactions. The Inquiry Officer dealt with that
defence. He held that these were reporting statements sent to higher
authorities; signatures or initials on them did not amount to the approval
required for taking LC exposure or negotiating export bills. That conclusion
is supported by the Petitioner’s own reply, in which he accepted that
exposure had not been obtained and written approval had been omitted. The
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 8724/2021 Page 9 of 22
Signed By:anita baital
Signing
Date:29.08.2026
15:28:53
finding on Charge (ii) is therefore not a finding based on no evidence.
27. Charge (iii) was narrower. The AGM-headed Branch had delegated
authority up to INR 150 lakh, while the charge-sheet identified five bills
negotiated beyond that limit. The LC documents were produced in the
enquiry and the management witness confirmed that the transactions crossed
the Branch delegation. The Petitioner relied on concurrent and statutory
audit and on the Branch Head’s awareness of the outstanding in the account.
That did not answer the charge. Awareness of the outstanding was not
approval to exceed the delegated authority. Interference with this finding
would require a reappraisal of the banking record, which is not warranted.
28. Charge (iv) is still more difficult for the Petitioner to dislodge. The
LCs contained Field 78(2), under which payment by the issuing Bank was
made conditional upon, inter alia , receipt of funds from its applicant. The
Bank regarded the clause as onerous because it diluted the ordinary
undertaking of the issuing Bank. The Petitioner’s defence was not that he
had noticed the clause and taken a considered view of it. He stated that,
because of the volume of transactions, inadequate staff and business
pressure, he had “inadvertently missed” it. He further stated that when the
clause came to notice, an amendment was sought, but that the Branch could
not immediately stop negotiations and one further bill was negotiated
thereafter. In these circumstances, the finding that the Petitioner failed to
properly scrutinise the LCs calls for no interference.
29. Charge (vi) related to repeated extensions of the due dates of two
negotiated bills. The enquiry record shows that the bills had been extended
three times and twice respectively. The Petitioner relied upon the borrower’s
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 8724/2021 Page 10 of 22
Signed By:anita baital
Signing
Date:29.08.2026
15:28:53
letters explaining the slowdown in the overseas jewellery market and also
th
upon the Branch memorandum dated 7 April, 2017 to contend that
approval had been sought from the Zonal Office. The Inquiry Officer
examined the document and found that it was a memorandum reporting the
lapses and the extensions already granted, not an application seeking
approval for those extensions. The management witness was categorical that
approval of the competent authority was not found on record. The
borrower’s commercial difficulties may have justified considering an
extension, but did not dispense with the requirement of obtaining approval.
30. The three charges on which the Disciplinary Authority disagreed with
the Inquiry Officer require separate treatment. On Charge (i), the documents
showed requests from the customer for documents to be sent to the
concerned Bank. They did not show a specific request for purchase or
negotiation of the bills. The Inquiry Officer therefore held the charge partly
proved; the Disciplinary Authority treated the absence of such a request as
sufficient to prove it fully. On Charge (v), the Petitioner accepted that, since
there was no RMA arrangement with the LC issuing Bank, acceptance or
refusal had been received through MT999. His case was that the messages
still came directly from the LC-opening Bank through SWIFT and that
receipt through MT754 or MT799 would have made no material difference.
The Disciplinary Authority held that, in the absence of a direct arrangement,
authenticated advice ought to have been routed through the Bank which had
advised the LC.
31. On Charge (viii), the Petitioner explained that the bills were tendered
post-shipment against an outstanding PCFC, and that direct transmission of
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 8724/2021 Page 11 of 22
Signed By:anita baital
Signing
Date:29.08.2026
15:28:53
documents to the overseas buyer was a trade practice in the jewellery
industry. The Inquiry Officer accepted the explanation to an extent, but
found the absence of a proper request for purchase sufficient to hold the
charge partly proved. The Disciplinary Authority took a stricter view. It
noted that the sanction terms did not permit purchase of bills sent directly to
the buyer and that no approval of the sanctioning authority had been
obtained. It therefore held the charge fully proved. Viewed in light of the
material discussed above, the Disciplinary Authority’s conclusions on
Charges (i), (v) and (viii) may not be the only possible view, but they are
views which the record reasonably permits. Article 226 does not authorise
the Court to substitute another view merely because it may appear equally
plausible.
32. One finding, however, cannot be sustained. Charge (vii) alleged that
the Petitioner permitted the FBP limit to exceed the sanctioned ceiling of
INR 4 crore.
33. The Bank’s own sanction document records an FBP limit of INR 4
crore, but immediately adds:
“FBN to be over and above the MPBF on bill to bill basis.”
34. The Long Form Audit Report [“LFAR”] was also produced in the
enquiry. When the management witness was asked to read it, he accepted
that the sanctioned limit was INR 400 lakh and that the ledger outstanding as
st
on 31 March, 2017 was INR 384.46 lakh. The defence additionally pointed
out that FBN outstanding was separately reflected as being over and above
the MPBF.
35. The Inquiry Officer preferred the statement of account which showed
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 8724/2021 Page 12 of 22
Signed By:anita baital
Signing
Date:29.08.2026
15:28:53
a larger figure because FBP and FBN transactions had been routed through
the same account. That was open to him if the contrary material could be
satisfactorily explained. The explanation actually given was that the higher
outstanding “might have missed” the LFAR and that the LFAR might
therefore not present the correct position.
36. That is conjecture. An official audit document cannot be discarded on
an assumption that it may itself be wrong, unless there is evidence to
establish the error. There was none. This was especially important because
the sanction terms themselves treated FBN as being over and above the
MPBF. The finding on Charge (vii) cannot, therefore, stand and is set aside.
37. Nothing more follows from that conclusion so far as the other charges
are concerned. The lapses concerning authority, approvals, scrutiny of the
Letters of Credit and extensions of due dates are independently established.
They warranted disciplinary action. They also warranted a major penalty.
The real question is which one.
The penalty
38. Before assessing the penalty, the plea of parity with other employees
must be addressed.
39. The Bank’s affidavit filed in 2024 sets out the action taken against the
other employees. Nisha Samyal, then a Clerk, entered four bills in Finacle
after the documents had been sent directly to the buyer; she was censured.
Komal Verma was charged, among other things, with failure to scrutinise
LC clauses and with dealing with bills sent directly to the buyer; she too was
censured. Sachin Kumar Rahul, Senior Manager in Forex, was concerned
with one transaction and was censured. Mahesh Bansal, AGM and Branch
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 8724/2021 Page 13 of 22
Signed By:anita baital
Signing
Date:29.08.2026
15:28:53
Head, was cautioned for monitoring lapses. Proceedings against M.K. Singh
were closed. Vikas Kumar, another AGM/Branch Head, was censured for
monitoring lapses.
40. The Petitioner cannot claim identical treatment merely because all
these officers were connected with the same account. His role was broader.
He directly handled the foreign exchange transactions, and several surviving
lapses were his own. A clerk who entered transactions, an officer concerned
with one bill, and Branch Heads charged with monitoring failures were not
placed in the same position. The plea of strict parity therefore fails.
41. The comparison, however, is still relevant. It shows that the episode
involved several levels of the Branch and that every other employee
proceeded against received censure, caution, or closure. The Petitioner’s
greater responsibility justified a heavier penalty, but the proportionality of
that difference still has to be examined.
42. The law leaves the choice of punishment primarily to the disciplinary
6
authority. B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India , permits judicial substitution
only in an exceptional case where the punishment is strikingly
disproportionate; ordinarily the matter goes back to the authority. The
Supreme Court has reiterated that restraint in Punjab & Sind Bank v. Raj
7
Kumar , , while preserving the power of the Court, in a rare case and for
cogent reasons, to itself impose the appropriate alternative penalty.
43. Raj Kumar also shows why the plea of parity cannot be decided by
looking only at the punishments imposed on the other employees. The
responsibility attached to the post and the part played by the delinquent
6
(1995) 6 SCC 749.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 8724/2021 Page 14 of 22
Signed By:anita baital
Signing
Date:29.08.2026
15:28:53
officer are relevant. There, the respondent was a Senior Manager who had
been proceeded against for conniving with others to misappropriate
customers’ money for personal gain and remove Bank records. The Supreme
Court held that his greater responsibility justified a punishment more severe
than that imposed on the co-delinquents and restored the penalty of
dismissal.
44. The present case, however, stands on a different footing. Unlike Raj
Kumar , there is no allegation that the Petitioner misappropriated Bank
funds, derived any personal benefit, colluded with the borrower or acted
dishonestly. The misconduct that remains proved is undoubtedly serious; it
is, however, of a different character.
45. The penalty must also be viewed in light of the finding on Charge
(vii). The Disciplinary Authority imposed removal on the premise that all
eight charges stood proved, including the allegation that the sanctioned FBP
ceiling had been crossed. That finding has now been set aside. The surviving
charges are serious enough to justify a major penalty. The proportionality of
removal must, however, be assessed on those findings alone, not on the
premise that all eight charges continue to stand.
46. The Petitioner’s length of service also merits consideration. It is true
that more than 36 years of experience demanded a greater degree of care in
the discharge of his duties, and the Reviewing Authority was justified in
taking that into account. At the same time, no previous disciplinary
punishment during those 36 years has been shown on record. That preceding
service record is a relevant consideration in determining the appropriate
7
2026 INSC 313.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 8724/2021 Page 15 of 22
Signed By:anita baital
Signing
Date:29.08.2026
15:28:53
penalty.
47. Taken together, these circumstances render the penalty of removal
disproportionate. The Petitioner’s more direct role may have warranted a
substantially heavier penalty than those imposed on the other employees,
and the misconduct which survives undoubtedly calls for a major penalty.
Having regard, however, to the nature of that misconduct, the setting aside
of Charge (vii), and the Petitioner’s preceding service record, removal
cannot be sustained as the appropriate penalty.
48. The Court therefore considers compulsory retirement to be the
appropriate major penalty in the circumstances of the case. Compulsory
retirement is itself a major penalty under Regulation 4(h); its substitution
neither exonerates the Petitioner nor treats the proved lapses as minor. It
preserves a substantial disciplinary consequence, while avoiding the separate
pensionary consequence which Regulation 22 attaches to removal, namely
forfeiture of past service.
49. The Supreme Court has itself substituted removal with compulsory
8
retirement in Naresh Chandra Bhardwaj v. Bank of India . That decision
rested substantially on parity between the delinquent officers and does not
make parity available where their roles and responsibilities are materially
different. It nevertheless illustrates, in the context of disciplinary
proceedings in Bank of India itself, that removal may be substituted by
compulsory retirement where the facts justify such intervention.
50. This is not a case in which remitting the question of punishment
would serve any useful purpose. The Petitioner superannuated in October
8
(2019) 15 SCC 786.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 8724/2021 Page 16 of 22
Signed By:anita baital
Signing
Date:29.08.2026
15:28:53
2018, and the penalty followed in May 2019. Nearly eight years have since
passed. The material necessary to assess proportionality is already before the
Court.
th
51. The penalty of removal imposed on 13 May, 2019 is accordingly
substituted by the major penalty of compulsory retirement under Regulation
4(h) of the Bank of India Officer Employees’ (Discipline & Appeal)
Regulations, 1976. Since the Petitioner had already ceased to be in service
st
on superannuation on 31 October, 2018, the substituted penalty shall, for
retiral and pensionary consequences, be reckoned from that date. It shall not
st
disturb the salary or other emoluments earned by him up to 31 October,
2018.
Pension and the other retiral dues
52. The pensionary consequences follow under a different set of
Regulations. Compulsory retirement is the penalty imposed under
Regulation 4(h) of the Discipline & Appeal Regulations. The Bank of India
(Employees’) Pension Regulations, 1995 then determine the pensionary
consequence of that penalty. This is consistent with Ramesh Chandra
Sharma , where the Supreme Court read Regulation 20(3)(iii), which
permitted disciplinary proceedings to continue after superannuation, in
conjunction with the Pension Regulations governing the pensionary
consequence of the penalty ultimately imposed. Virinder Pal Singh has
since reiterated that disciplinary proceedings validly continued after
superannuation may be taken to their logical conclusion, while the practical
effect of the penalty must be worked out under the governing statutory
scheme.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 8724/2021 Page 17 of 22
Signed By:anita baital
Signing
Date:29.08.2026
15:28:53
53. The date from which those consequences are to be worked out also
st
presents no difficulty. The Petitioner worked until 31 October, 2018 and
ceased to be in service on superannuation that day. Regulation 20(3)(iii) did
not extend his actual service; it only deemed its continuance for the limited
purpose of carrying the disciplinary proceeding to its conclusion. In
Virinder Pal Singh , the Supreme Court held that a post-superannuation
penalty reducing pay could be implemented by relating the reduction to the
date of superannuation for computation of pension. The facts in Vijay
9
Kumar v. Central Bank of India similarly show that compulsory retirement
was imposed after superannuation with effect from the date of
superannuation, and the pension payable consequent upon that penalty was
thereafter examined under Regulation 33. The validity of the penalty itself
was, however, no longer in issue before the Supreme Court.
54. Regulation 33 of the Bank of India (Employees’) Pension
Regulations, 1995 applies to an employee compulsorily retired as a penalty
under the Discipline & Appeal Regulations. It provides for pension at a rate
not less than two-thirds and not more than the full pension otherwise
admissible on the date of compulsory retirement, provided the employee was
otherwise entitled to pension on superannuation on that date. The decision is
to be taken by the authority higher than the authority competent to impose
the penalty. Where less than full pension is proposed, the Board of Directors
must be consulted before the order is passed.
55. The identically worded Regulation was considered in Vijay Kumar .
The Supreme Court held that two-thirds of the full pension is the statutory
9
2025 INSC 848.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 8724/2021 Page 18 of 22
Signed By:anita baital
Signing
Date:29.08.2026
15:28:53
minimum. It further held that Regulations 33(1) and 33(2) operate together
and that whenever the full pension otherwise admissible is sought to be
reduced, prior consultation with the Board is mandatory. A post facto
approval will not suffice. The Court also required an opportunity of hearing
before such reduction and directed that, if a valid decision was not taken
within the time granted, full pension would become payable from the date of
superannuation.
56. Consequent upon the substitution of removal with compulsory
retirement, the Petitioner’s final pension must therefore be determined under
st
Regulation 33 with effect from 1 November, 2018. The authority
contemplated by that Regulation shall decide whether he is to receive full
pension or a lesser pension within the statutory range. If less than full
pension is proposed, the Petitioner shall be heard and the decision shall be
preceded by consultation with the Board of Directors. The authority shall
proceed on the findings which survive this judgment. Charge (vii), having
been set aside, shall not form part of that exercise.
57. There is, however, a separate entitlement for the period during which
the disciplinary proceeding remained pending after superannuation.
Regulation 46(1) required payment of provisional pension equal to the
maximum pension which would otherwise have been admissible to the
nd
Petitioner. The Bank relies on payment of INR 3,10,004.75 on 2
December, 2019, described as “provisional pension by way of
compassionate allowance”. That payment cannot substitute the statutory
entitlement under Regulation 46(1), unless it satisfies the quantum
prescribed thereunder. Further, although provisional pension is adjustable
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 8724/2021 Page 19 of 22
Signed By:anita baital
Signing
Date:29.08.2026
15:28:53
against the final retirement benefits, Regulation 46(1) expressly prohibits
recovery where the pension ultimately sanctioned is lower. The Bank itself
treats the disciplinary proceeding as having concluded with the order dated
th
13 May, 2019. The Petitioner was therefore entitled to the maximum
st
provisional pension from 1 November, 2018 until that date. Any shortfall
for this period must be made good, and cannot subsequently be recovered
merely because the pension determined under Regulation 33 is lower.
58. Regulation 38 of the Officers’ Service Regulations expressly entitles
an officer compulsorily retired, including as a measure of punishment, to the
cash equivalent of accumulated privilege leave up to 240 days. The Bank
th
had extended that benefit with effect from 30 April, 2015 to officers
compulsorily retired by way of penalty. The Petitioner’s substituted penalty,
st
reckoned from 31 October, 2018, therefore attracts that entitlement.
59. The claim for interest on gratuity stands differently. Regulation 46(2)
permitted the Bank to withhold gratuity until conclusion of the disciplinary
proceeding. The Petitioner was not exonerated in that proceeding. The
th
penalty order was passed on 13 May, 2019 and gratuity of INR 18,75,535
th
was released on 30 May, 2019. In these circumstances, no direction for
interest on gratuity is called for.
60. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is partly allowed in the
following terms:
th
(i) The finding of guilt under Article I(vii) of the charge-sheet dated 27
September, 2018 is set aside. The findings under the remaining components
of Article I are left undisturbed.
(ii) The penalty of “removal from service which shall not be a
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 8724/2021 Page 20 of 22
Signed By:anita baital
Signing
Date:29.08.2026
15:28:53
th
disqualification for future employment”, imposed by order dated 13 May,
2019, is substituted by the major penalty of compulsory retirement under
Regulation 4(h) of the Bank of India Officer Employees’ (Discipline &
Appeal) Regulations, 1976. For retiral and pensionary consequences, the
st
substituted penalty shall be reckoned from 31 October, 2018. This shall not
disturb the salary or other emoluments earned by the Petitioner up to that
th
date. The appellate order dated 5 September, 2019 and the review order
th
dated 12 December, 2019 shall stand modified accordingly.
st th
(iii) For the period from 1 November, 2018 to 13 May, 2019, the Bank
shall calculate the provisional pension payable to the Petitioner under
Regulation 46(1), at the maximum pension otherwise admissible to him, and
release the shortfall, after giving credit for any amount already paid for the
corresponding period, within eight weeks. If the pension subsequently
determined under Regulation 33 is lower, no recovery shall be made of the
difference, in terms of Regulation 46(1).
(iv) The authority contemplated by Regulation 33 shall determine the
pension payable to the Petitioner consequent upon compulsory retirement,
st
with effect from 1 November, 2018. The pension shall not be less than two-
thirds of the full pension otherwise admissible. If anything less than full
pension is proposed, the Petitioner shall be heard and the decision shall be
taken only after prior consultation with the Board of Directors. The authority
shall proceed only on the findings which survive this judgment.
(v) The exercise under Regulation 33 shall be completed within eight
weeks. If no valid decision is taken within that period, the Petitioner shall be
st
entitled to full pension with effect from 1 November, 2018, consistently
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 8724/2021 Page 21 of 22
Signed By:anita baital
Signing
Date:29.08.2026
15:28:53
with Vijay Kumar . While working out the arrears, the Bank may give credit
for pension or compassionate allowance already paid, subject to the
protection in clause (iii). The arrears shall be released within four weeks of
the determination, failing which they shall carry simple interest at 6% per
annum from the expiry of that period until payment. Any consequential
issue of commutation shall be dealt with in accordance with the Pension
Regulations.
(vi) The Bank shall determine the privilege leave standing to the
st
Petitioner’s credit as on 31 October, 2018 and pay the cash equivalent
thereof under Regulation 38, subject to the ceiling of 240 days, within eight
weeks. If payment is not made within that period, the amount shall carry
simple interest at 6% per annum thereafter.
(vii) The prayer for interest on gratuity is rejected.
61. The petition and pending applications, if any, are disposed of in these
terms.
SANJEEV NARULA, J
AUGUST 25, 2026/ nk
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 8724/2021 Page 22 of 22
Signed By:anita baital
Signing
Date:29.08.2026
15:28:53