Disciplinary proceedings after retirement — Impermissibility Disciplinary proceedings can be continued after retirement only if they were initiated by issuance of charge memo while the employee was in service. No disciplinary proceedings can be initiated after the employee has ceased to be in service on acceptance of voluntary retirement. (Paras 13, 20, 21)

advocatemmmohan

Bank Employees — Disciplinary proceedings after retirement — Jurisdiction — Pension Regulations — Withholding / withdrawal of pension — Scope

Bank of Baroda Officer Employees’ (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976 — Regulations 4, 6, 17 & 18
Bank of Baroda Officer Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations, 1976 — Regulations 2(i), 3 & 24
Bank of Baroda Officer Employees’ Pension Regulations, 1995 — Regulations 45 & 48
Article 226 of Constitution of India

---

1. Disciplinary proceedings after retirement — Impermissibility
   Disciplinary proceedings can be continued after retirement only if they were initiated by issuance of charge memo while the employee was in service. No disciplinary proceedings can be initiated after the employee has ceased to be in service on acceptance of voluntary retirement.
   (Paras 13, 20, 21)

2. Date of initiation of disciplinary proceedings — Charge memo decisive
   Disciplinary proceedings are deemed to be initiated only upon issuance of charge memo / charge sheet and not from internal deliberations or preliminary steps taken by the employer.
   (Paras 13, 20, 21)

3. Applicability of Conduct and Discipline Regulations — Retired employees excluded
   Conduct Regulations and Discipline & Appeal Regulations apply only to “officer employees” as defined therein and do not extend to persons who ceased to be employees on the date of initiation of proceedings.
   (Paras 15, 19, 21)

4. Pension Regulations — Limited scope — Not a source of disciplinary power
   Pension Regulations do not independently confer power to initiate disciplinary proceedings; they only enable withholding or withdrawal of pension subject to strict compliance with procedure prescribed therein.
   (Paras 16, 17, 25)

5. Regulation 45 & 48 — Mandatory procedural safeguards
   Before withholding or withdrawing pension under Regulations 45 or 48, the competent authority must:
   (i) conduct proceedings strictly in accordance with Discipline & Appeal Regulations,
   (ii) establish grave misconduct distinct from ordinary misconduct, and
   (iii) consult the Board prior to passing final orders.
   Non-compliance renders the order void.
   (Paras 17, 18, 25)

6. Grave misconduct — Higher threshold than ‘misconduct’ under Conduct Regulations
   The expression “grave misconduct” under Chapter IX of Pension Regulations stands on a higher pedestal than “misconduct” under Conduct Regulations and cannot be presumed merely because misconduct is alleged or proved.
   (Paras 25)

7. Recovery of pecuniary loss from pension — Preconditions
   Recovery under Regulation 48 is permissible only after determination of actual pecuniary loss in duly instituted proceedings and after prior consultation with the Board; speculative or unquantified loss cannot justify recovery.
   (Paras 9(f), 25)

8. Penalty not enumerated in Rules — Illegality
   Withdrawal of one-third pension permanently is not a penalty prescribed under Regulation 4 of Discipline & Appeal Regulations; disciplinary authority has no inherent power to invent or impose penalties not contemplated by statute.
   (Paras 23, 25)

9. Alternative remedy — No bar where lack of jurisdiction established
   Availability of statutory appeal or review does not bar exercise of writ jurisdiction where the authority acted wholly without jurisdiction.
   (Paras 22)

10. Remand to disciplinary authority — Not warranted when proceedings void ab initio
    Where initiation of disciplinary proceedings itself is without jurisdiction, the question of remand for reconsideration of penalty does not arise.
    (Paras 23, 24)

---

ANALYSIS

The petitioner, a Senior Manager of the respondent bank, sought voluntary retirement, which was accepted retrospectively with effect from 20.01.2003. The charge memo was issued only on 26.08.2003 / 02.09.2003, i.e., after the petitioner had ceased to be an employee.

The Court examined the interplay between three distinct regulatory frameworks:

1. Conduct Regulations & Discipline & Appeal Regulations — governing misconduct, penalties, and disciplinary procedure applicable exclusively to serving “officer employees”.

2. Pension Regulations — intended only to regulate pensionary benefits, with limited power to withhold or withdraw pension subject to stringent safeguards.

3. Service Regulations — permitting continuation of disciplinary proceedings after retirement only where such proceedings were initiated before retirement.

The Court held that no disciplinary proceedings were pending or initiated prior to retirement, as initiation occurs only upon issuance of charge memo. Consequently, invocation of Conduct and DA Regulations against a retired employee was held to be without jurisdiction.

Even on the assumption that Pension Regulations were invoked, the Court found multiple fatal defects:

• absence of Board consultation,

• lack of determination of “grave misconduct” as distinct from ordinary misconduct,

• absence of quantified pecuniary loss,

• and imposition of a penalty not contemplated by any regulation.

The Court further clarified that pension regulations cannot be used as a surrogate disciplinary code to impose penalties post-retirement.

Given the jurisdictional defect at the threshold, the existence of appellate remedies was held immaterial, and the entire proceedings were quashed.

---

RATIO DECIDENDI

Disciplinary proceedings cannot be initiated against a bank employee after acceptance of voluntary retirement, as Conduct and Discipline & Appeal Regulations apply only to serving employees; Pension Regulations do not confer independent disciplinary power and permit withholding or withdrawal of pension only upon strict compliance with prescribed procedure, proof of grave misconduct, prior Board consultation, and determination of actual pecuniary loss—any penalty imposed dehors the statutory framework is illegal and without jurisdiction.