Disciplinary proceedings initiated before superannuation may continue post-retirement, and dismissal remains a valid penalty under service regulations.

The petitioner was an Officer Scale-II at Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank who superannuated on January 31, 2016.

While in service, he was served with a memorandum of charges on April 9, 2016 (though he had already attained superannuation age, the proceedings related to his service period).

Following a departmental inquiry, several charges of misconduct were proved.

The Disciplinary Authority issued a second show-cause notice and, on April 20, 2016, passed an order of dismissal, which acts as a disqualification for future employment.

This order was affirmed by the Appellate Authority on October 5, 2016.

The petitioner challenged these orders via a writ petition, seeking quashing of the dismissal and payment of retiral dues.

Whether an employee of Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank could be dismissed from service after his retirement on superannuation.

The court primarily applied the Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations, 2010.

Regulation 39 outlines major penalties, including dismissal.

Regulation 45 provides the legal fiction for "deemed service," stating that an employee under disciplinary proceedings shall be deemed to be in service beyond the age of superannuation for the specific purpose of concluding proceedings and issuing final orders.

Specifically, Regulation 45(3) mandates that while an officer ceases to be in service for other purposes, the proceeding shall continue "as if he was in service" until a final order is passed.

The court analyzed the statutory framework of the 2010 Regulations to determine the jurisdiction of the Bank authorities.

It noted that Regulation 45 creates a specific legal mechanism allowing the Bank to conclude disciplinary actions initiated or pending against an employee even after they reach the age of retirement.

The court observed that Regulation 45(4) explicitly bars the receipt of retirement benefits (except the employee's own CPF contribution) until the final order is passed.

Since the petitioner did not challenge the procedural fairness, inquiry manner, or allege mala fides, the court's scrutiny was limited to the legal authority to punish post-retirement.

The court reasoned that because the Regulations provide for the continuation of proceedings and the passing of any penalty as if the employee were still in service, the dismissal order was within the statutory parameters.

Consequently, the petitioner is not entitled to arrear pay, allowances, or retiral benefits.

The writ petition was dismissed on contest with no order as to costs.