Division Bench of the High Court had set aside the order dated 03.03.1993, passed by the appellant-Bank, Wherein the punishment of dismissal was imposed upon the respondent no.1 and the order dated 23.07.1993, by which the appeal filed by him was dismissed by the Appellate Authority. (Para 1)
An intimation notice for retirement was served upon him on 07.05.1991. Immediately, thereafter on 17.06.1991, the respondent no.1 was served with a memo requiring him to explain the irregularities and lapses relating to certain accounts during his tenure when he was heading the Bombay Main Branch. (Para 2)
It was opined that the 1979 Regulations could be invoked only when the disciplinary proceeding had been initiated prior to the ceasing of the employees service. The delinquent employee would be deemed to be in service, although he has reached the age of superannuation, only if a valid departmental proceeding had been initiated. The departmental proceeding was not initiated merely on issuance of a show cause notice. It is initiated only when a chargesheet is issued. That is the date of application of mind on the allegations levelled against an employee by the competent authority. Pendency of a preliminary disciplinary inquiry by itself cannot be a ground for invoking Regulation 20 of the 1979 Regulations. On an employee having been allowed to superannuate, only proceeding inter alia including, withdrawal of his pension or any other retiral dues under the applicable regulation, could have been initiated. As in that case, the chargesheet was issued after the employee had already superannuated, the same along with inquiry report and the order of punishment was set aside. The order of removal or dismissal from service can be passed only when an employee is in service. If a person is not in employment, the question of terminating his service ordinarily would not arise unless there exists a specific rule in this behalf. In the aforesaid case, even though the employee was not in appeal before this Court against the order of his compulsory retirement but still this Court invoking the principles, as contained in Order XLI Rule 33 CPC, granted relief to the respondent. (Para 20.1)
In the case in hand, the deceased employee had attained the age of superannuation on 31.07.1991, whereas the chargesheet was issued to him on 07.12.1991. Meaning thereby that on the date of his superannuation, no disciplinary proceeding was pending against him. (Para 23)
At the time of hearing, it was pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent no.1 that the employee had expired during the pendency of this appeal on 30.12.2012. It has been noticed by the Division Bench in the impugned judgment of the High Court that the subsistence allowance was not paid to the deceased employee. As we have set aside the punishment order inflicted on the deceased employee, all the service benefits due to him along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of his retirement till the payment is made, shall be paid by the appellant-Bank to his legal heirs within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. (Para 28)
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2023 STPL(Web) 342 SC
[2023 INSC 908]
Uco Bank And Others Vs. M.B. Motwani (Dead) Thr. Lrs. & Others
Civil Appeal No. 8516 of 2011-Decided on 12-10-2023
https://stpllaw.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/2023-STPLWeb-342-SC.pdf
