Disciplinary proceedings cannot be initiated post-retirement if no chargesheet was served during active service.

The Petitioner, while serving as a Branch Manager at Utkal Grameen Bank, Bhikampali, was involved in a cash remittance of Rs. 20 lakh on April 18, 2016

During transit, the cash bag went missing from the vehicle, leading to an FIR and the Petitioner's subsequent suspension on April 25, 2016, under Regulation 46 of the Utkal Grameen Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations, 2012

The Petitioner reached the age of superannuation and retired on May 31, 2016

Approximately six months post-retirement, on November 24, 2016, the Bank issued a Memorandum of Charges

Despite the Petitioner's objection regarding jurisdiction, an ex parte disciplinary proceeding was conducted leading to an order of dismissal and forfeiture of gratuity on July 7, 2018

1. Whether a disciplinary proceeding can be validly initiated against a bank employee after their retirement if they were under suspension but no chargesheet was served prior to superannuation

2. Whether the "deeming fiction" under Regulation 10(2) and Regulation 45 of the 2012 Regulations allows for the commencement of proceedings post-retirement based solely on a pre-retirement suspension

Regulation 45 of the Utkal Grameen Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations, 2012, which allows for the "continuation and conclusion" of proceedings post-retirement only if they were already initiated

The Supreme Court precedents in UCO Bank v. Rajinder Lal Capoor [AIR 2007 SC 2129] and Canara Bank v. D.R.P. Sundaram [(2016) 12 SCC 724], which established that disciplinary proceedings are legally "initiated" only upon the issuance and service of a formal chargesheet, not by a suspension order or show-cause notice

Regulation 10(2) "deeming fiction" is restricted to preventing resignation during the pendency of a cloud of suspicion and does not override the requirements for initiating post-retirement inquiries

The Court reasoned that for a disciplinary proceeding to "continue" after retirement under Regulation 45, it must have been legally "initiated" while the employee was still in service

It rejected the Bank's argument that suspension equates to initiation, clarifying that suspension is merely a state of "contemplation" of action

Since the Petitioner retired on May 31, 2016, and the chargesheet—which marks the actual commencement of proceedings—was not issued until November 24, 2016, there was no valid proceeding "pending" at the time of retirement to be continued

The Court emphasized that once the master-servant relationship terminates upon superannuation, the employer loses jurisdiction to initiate new proceedings unless specifically empowered by a statute that allows for initiation (rather than just continuation) post-retirement

Consequently, the disciplinary proceeding and the subsequent order of punishment (dismissal) vide Annexure-9 were declared non est and quashed

The Court allowed the writ petition and directed the Opposite Parties to release all admissible service benefits to the Petitioner within three weeks