Where disciplinary proceedings commence before retirement, dismissal may validly be imposed after superannuation.

The petitioner, an officer of Central M.P. Gramin Bank, faced a Lokayukta trap case arising from an incident dated 30 November 2012.

The Bank initiated departmental proceedings concerning the same transaction and issued a charge-sheet dated 25 October 2013.

The petitioner alleged that the charge-sheet and relevant documents were not properly supplied, while the Bank relied on the postal endorsement recording his refusal to accept the communication.

The petitioner sought deferment of the departmental enquiry because the criminal case was pending and also sought adjournment on medical grounds.

He nevertheless did not participate in the enquiry, which proceeded ex parte, and the Enquiry Officer submitted a report finding all charges proved.

The petitioner superannuated on 30 June 2014.

The disciplinary authority thereafter imposed the penalty of dismissal from service by order dated 10 July 2014, communicated on 17 July 2014; the statutory appeal was dismissed by a non-speaking order dated 17 March 2015.

The petitioner challenged the departmental proceedings, the ex parte enquiry, the dismissal order and the appellate order under Article 226 of the Constitution, principally contending that he had been denied natural justice and that dismissal could not be imposed after superannuation.

1. Whether the departmental enquiry and ex parte proceedings violated the principles of natural justice because the petitioner was allegedly not served with the charge-sheet and relevant documents or afforded a reasonable opportunity of defence?

2. Whether the pendency of the criminal prosecution on allegedly identical facts required the departmental proceedings to be stayed?

3. Whether, under Regulations 39 and 45 of the Madhya Pradesh Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations, 2010, dismissal from service could be imposed after the petitioner had attained superannuation where the departmental proceedings had been initiated before retirement?

4. Whether the High Court, in exercise of judicial review under Article 226, should interfere with the disciplinary findings and punishment?

Regulation 39 of the Madhya Pradesh Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations, 2010 prescribes minor and major penalties for officers, including dismissal from service, subject to written charges and a reasonable opportunity to defend.

Regulation 45 permits disciplinary proceedings initiated before retirement to continue after superannuation and provides that the employee is treated as continuing in service for the purpose of continuation, conclusion and final orders in the proceedings.

The Court relied on State Bank of India v. Ram Lal Bhaskar, (2011) 10 SCC 249, holding that where the charge-sheet is issued before retirement and the applicable service rules contain a continuation provision, disciplinary proceedings may continue and dismissal may be imposed.

It distinguished UCO Bank v. Rajinder Lal Capoor, (2007) 6 SCC 694, and UCO Bank v. Prabhakar Sadashiv Karvade, (2018) 14 SCC 98, which concerned the limits on imposing substantive penalties after retirement in different regulatory contexts.

Under Shashi Bhushan Prasad v. Inspector General, CISF, (2019) 7 SCC 797, criminal and departmental proceedings operate in distinct fields; departmental guilt is determined on a preponderance of probabilities, and parallel criminal proceedings do not automatically bar disciplinary action.

Judicial review under Article 226 is confined to correcting errors of law, procedural unfairness or violations of natural justice and does not permit the High Court to re-appreciate evidence as an appellate court, as stated in Government of A.P. v. Mohd. Nasrullah Khan, (2006) 2 SCC 373.

The Court examined the departmental record and found that the charge-sheet had been sent by registered post and bore the postal endorsement “refused to accept.”

The petitioner’s subsequent letters demonstrated that he knew of the departmental proceedings and the appointment of the Enquiry Officer, but deliberately chose not to participate while seeking documents primarily for the criminal trial.

The Court therefore treated the enquiry as one in which an opportunity had been afforded but not availed, rather than as a proceeding conducted without notice or opportunity.

The pendency of the criminal case did not mandate a stay because the petitioner had not produced the criminal charges to establish identity of the charges, and departmental proceedings apply a different standard and serve a different purpose from criminal trials.

On the retirement issue, the Court held that the charge-sheet and disciplinary proceedings had commenced before superannuation; consequently, Regulation 45 permitted continuation of the proceedings and, read with Regulation 39, authorised the imposition of dismissal.

Finally, since the disciplinary findings were based on the enquiry record and no procedural illegality or breach of natural justice was established, the Court declined to reassess the evidence or substitute its view on punishment.

It further held that the pending criminal prosecution did not require suspension of the departmental proceedings and that, because the proceedings had been initiated before retirement, Regulations 39 and 45 authorised continuation of the enquiry and imposition of dismissal even after superannuation.

Finding no jurisdictional error, procedural violation or other ground for interference under Article 226, the High Court dismissed the writ petition and returned the departmental record to the Bank’s counsel.