Summary
The Supreme Court upheld a penalty of reduction of pay by three stages imposed on a bank officer after he superannuated, in disciplinary proceedings begun before his retirement. Regulation 20(3)(iii) of the Punjab and Sind Bank Officers' Service Regulations lets such proceedings continue as if he were in service, and the reduction can be implemented by recomputing pension. It also declined to reopen the finding that he failed to ensure end-use of a loan, a point not pressed before the High Court.
Issues
- Whether, after the officer's superannuation, the penalty of reduction by three stages in the time scale of pay could be imposed under the Service Regulations, or whether action under the Pension Regulations was the only course.
- Whether there was any perversity in the enquiry report and the disciplinary and appellate orders, and whether that could be raised when it was not pressed before the High Court.
Provisions considered
- Regulation 20(3)(iii), Punjab and Sind Bank Officers' Service Regulations, 1982Provides that an officer facing disciplinary proceedings ceases to be in service on superannuation, but the proceedings continue as if he were in service until a final order is passed. Held to permit the proceedings begun before retirement to be concluded and a penalty imposed. (¶¶ 25, 29, 36, 38)
- Regulation 2, Punjab and Sind Bank Officers' Service Regulations, 1982The appellant argued that, because the Regulations apply to officers of the Bank, they ceased to apply once he retired. The Court did not accept this in view of the deeming fiction in Regulation 20(3)(iii). (¶¶ 24, 26, 36, 38)
- Pension Regulations (penalties after retirement), Punjab and Sind Bank Employees' Pension Regulations, 1995The Single Judge had held that only penalties under the Pension Regulations could be imposed after retirement. The Court held that action under them was not the only course where the Service Regulations allow the pending proceedings to continue. (¶¶ 3, 26, 36, 38)
Held
- Where the applicable service rules or regulations permit disciplinary proceedings begun before superannuation to continue, they may be carried to their conclusion after the officer retires. If the penalty is dismissal, it can be given effect by forfeiture of pension and retiral dues; where the penalty would instead reduce or adjust pension or require recovery from retiral dues, the court must consider whether it can be implemented after retirement. (¶ 36)
- A permanent reduction of pay by three stages relates back to the date of superannuation. Since pension is ordinarily computed on the salary last drawn or payable, the penalty can be implemented by recomputing pension, and the Division Bench correctly construed Regulation 20(3)(iii) in upholding it. (¶¶ 37, 38)
- The appellant did not dispute that large cash withdrawals were allowed without supporting bills, so the charge of failing to ensure end-use of the loan stood proved. The finding was not perverse, and its merits could not be reopened when no such plea was pressed before the High Court. (¶¶ 14, 15, 16, 18, 21, 22)
- Ensuring end-use of a loan prevents diversion, protects recovery and gives meaning to the appraisal of the project. A bank officer handles public money and holds a position of trust, so failure to ensure end-use is a financial irregularity and misconduct, and penal action is not invalid merely because the bank suffered no loss. (¶¶ 17, 19, 20)
- The penalty was not shockingly disproportionate to the proven misconduct. (¶ 22)
Result
Appeal dismissed; the Division Bench's judgment upholding the penalty affirmed; no order as to costs.