Disciplinary proceedings initiated during service may conclude with dismissal even after an employee's superannuation.

The respondent, a Branch Head at J&K Bank, was placed under suspension on March 17, 2021, following allegations of financial irregularities

Two charge sheets were issued (May 21, 2021, and June 28, 2021) regarding unauthorized sanctioning of Temporary Overdrafts (TODs) at Branch Offices Rangreth and Barzulla

Although the respondent superannuated on June 30, 2021, the disciplinary proceedings continued as per service rules

The Enquiry Officers found the charges proved, leading the Disciplinary Authority to dismiss the respondent from service effective from his date of retirement

The respondent challenged this dismissal through a writ petition. The Writ Court quashed the dismissal, holding that the charges were not sufficiently proved and that the respondent acted under verbal instructions of superiors

The Bank appealed this judgment.

1. Whether an employee against whom a disciplinary enquiry is initiated while in service can be dismissed from service by an order passed after their superannuation?

2. What is the scope of judicial review by a Constitutional Court regarding departmental proceedings and the nature of punishment imposed?

3. Whether the enquiry proceedings were vitiated by procedural impropriety, perversity, or disproportionate punishment?

Rule 259 of the J&K Bank Officers’ Service Manual-2000, which mandates that disciplinary proceedings initiated during service shall continue until a final order is passed regardless of superannuation

Virinder Pal Singh v. Punjab and Sind Bank (2026 INSC 266), establishing that post-retirement dismissal is valid if proceedings began pre-retirement

Principles from State of Rajasthan v. Bhupendra Singh (2024) and State of Andhra Pradesh v. Sree Rama Rao (AIR 1963 SC 1723), which dictate that High Courts under Article 226 cannot act as appellate courts to re-appreciate evidence unless the findings are based on "no evidence" or are "wholly arbitrary"

Rule 337-c of OSM-2000, which requires employees acting under verbal directions to seek written confirmation at the earliest opportunity

The Court found that the Writ Court erred by re-appreciating evidence and acting as an appellate body

Under Rule 259, the Bank maintained the legal authority to conclude proceedings and impose dismissal post-superannuation

The Court noted that the respondent admitted to granting TODs beyond his sanctioned limits

While the respondent claimed he acted on verbal orders from the Vice President, he failed to provide proof of seeking written confirmation as Mandated by Rule 337-c

The Court rejected the respondent's claim of natural justice violation regarding the non-examination of a bank official (Mr. Banday), noting the official only provided a record-based email confirmation and the respondent never requested to summon him

Highlighting that bank officers hold a "position of trust," the Court held that reckless lending constitutes grave misconduct regardless of whether actual financial loss was recovered, as it exposes the bank to risk

The Court held that the scope of judicial review is limited to the decision-making process, not the merit of the decision itself

The Court found no procedural irregularity or perversity in the enquiry

Consequently, the Division Bench allowed the appeal, set aside the Writ Court’s judgment dated July 24, 2025, and dismissed the respondent's writ petition, thereby upholding the order of dismissal