- (1.) PRADEEP Kant and K. S. Rakhra, JJ.-Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri H. P. Srivastava and Sri N. K. Seth for the respondent Bank.
(2.) EXCLUDING all other facts, the short point involved in the present petition is as to whether an employee of the U. P. Co-operative Bank Ltd., whose services are governed by the provisions of U. P. Co-operative Societies Employees Service Regulations, 1975 could be subjected to any initiation and continuation of disciplinary proceedings or award of punishment after retirement even though no such power exists in the aforesaid Service Regulations and also whether without holding any enquiry and without associating the petitioner in the enquiry, any amount towards gratuity or ex gratia payment could have been withheld in view of the Circulars and Office Memorandum issued by the Bank. The petitioner joined the services of U. P. Co-operative Bank Ltd. In the year 1956 on the post of Assistant, who was later on promoted upto the post of Deputy General Manager from which post he retired on 31st March, 1993. since after retirement, the petitioner was not being paid the balance amount of gratuity, security and ex gratia for the years 1991-92, 1992-93 on the alleged audit objections, as disclosed in the counter-affidavit, the petitioner amended the writ petition and challenged the aforesaid directions also. Since initially at the time of filing of the writ petition, the aforesaid facts were not in the knowledge of the petitioner, the necessary plea was taken on the basis of the averments made in the counter-affidavit, wherein the Bank made efforts to justify its action of withholding the payment, though, according to the Bank, only ex gratia payment has not been made on the ground that in view of the Circular issued by the Bank under the signatures of the Managing Director, referred to above, such recovery could have very well been made from the petitioner.
(3.) THE power to hold enquiry including initiation of disciplinary proceedings, its continuation and consequently award of punishment, after retirement of an employee, would depend upon the Service Rules which govern the services of such an employee. In the absence of any statutory provision or rule, such an enquiry can neither be initiated nor continued nor any punishment can be inflicted after an employee retires. In the case of Bhagirathi Jena v. Board of Directors, (1999) 3 SCC 666, where the Apex Court, considering the effect of retirement on the pending departmental enquiry, held as under : "...................................................................... no specific provision was made for deducting any amount from the provident fund consequent to any misconduct determined in the departmental enquiry nor was any provision made for continuance of the departmental enquiry after superannuation. In view of the absence of such a provision in the aforesaid regulations, it must be held that the Corporation had no legal authority to make any reduction in the retiral benefits of the appellant. THEre is also no provision for conducting a disciplinary enquiry after retirement of the appellant nor any provision stating that in case misconduct is established, a deduction could be made from retiral benefits. Once the appellant had retired from service on 30.6.1995, there was no authority vested in the Corporation for continuing the departmental enquiry even for the purpose of imposing any reduction in the retiral benefits payable to the appellant. In the absence of such an authority, it must be held that the enquiry had lapsed and the appellant was entitled to full retiral benefits on retirement." In the case of Dr. R. B. Agnihotri v. State of U. P. and others, 2000 (2) AWC 1242 : 2000 (2) HVD 161, a Division Bench of this Court has held that in the absence of any statutory provision departmental proceedings could not be continued after retirement even to the extent for the purpose of imposing any reduction to the retiral benefits payable to the employee.;