Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Bhaurao s/o Gindhuji Khaparde, was a Staff Officer at the Wadsa Branch of Wainganga Krishna Kshetriya Gramin Bank. On 02.08.2007, he was placed under suspension for alleged gross misconduct and irregularities, specifically for clearing a cheque of Rs.2,50,000/- on 06.06.2007 that was not issued to a Savings Bank account holder and had a signature mismatch. The bank also lodged an FIR on 08.09.2007 under Sections 409, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, alleging misappropriation of Rs.8,85,000/-. The petitioner reached the age of superannuation on 31.05.2011. By order dated 16.08.2011, the bank informed him that inquiry proceedings could not be completed before his retirement and quoted Regulation 45(3) and (4) of the Wainganga Kshetriya Gramin Bank Officers' and Employees' Service Regulations, 2010. Subsequently, on 17.12.2011, the bank issued a communication fixing a date of hearing in the departmental inquiry. The petitioner challenged this communication by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking quashing of the inquiry on the grounds that it was initiated more than four years after the alleged misconduct and after his superannuation. The legal issues considered were whether a departmental inquiry can be initiated after an employee's superannuation and whether the delay in initiation was unreasonable. The petitioner argued that the inquiry could not be initiated after 31.05.2011 as per the service regulations and that the delay caused prejudice. The respondents contended that the inquiry was permissible under Regulation 45. The court analyzed the provisions of Regulation 45, which deals with the procedure for imposing penalties and states that the inquiry may be continued even after retirement in certain circumstances. However, the court found that the bank had not followed the proper procedure and that the inquiry was initiated after an inordinate delay of over four years. The court held that the communication dated 17.12.2011 and the inquiry proceedings were liable to be quashed. The decision was in favor of the petitioner, and the court allowed the writ petition, quashing the inquiry.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Departmental Inquiry - Initiation After Superannuation - Regulation 45 of Wainganga Kshetriya Gramin Bank Officers' and Employees' Service Regulations, 2010 - The petitioner, a bank employee, was placed under suspension in 2007 for alleged misconduct but no inquiry was completed before his superannuation on 31.05.2011. The bank issued a communication on 17.12.2011 fixing a hearing date for the inquiry, which was challenged. The court held that under Regulation 45(3) and (4), the inquiry could not be initiated after superannuation and the delay of over four years was unreasonable. The court quashed the communication and the inquiry proceedings. (Paras 1-10) B) Service Law - Delay in Disciplinary Proceedings - Prejudice - The court noted that the petitioner was a senior citizen and the inordinate delay in initiating the inquiry after the alleged misconduct caused prejudice. The court emphasized that disciplinary proceedings must be conducted within a reasonable time and cannot be used as a tool to harass retired employees. (Paras 5-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a departmental inquiry initiated after the employee's superannuation and more than four years after the alleged misconduct is valid and can be continued.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The communication dated 17.12.2011 and the departmental inquiry proceedings are quashed and set aside.
Law Points
- Departmental inquiry cannot be initiated after superannuation unless permitted by service regulations
- Delay in initiation of disciplinary proceedings can be a ground for quashing if it causes prejudice
- Regulation 45 of Wainganga Kshetriya Gramin Bank Officers' and Employees' Service Regulations
- 2010
