HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAJASHEKER REDDY Writ Petition No.35197 of 2013 Date: 15-04-2014 Between:
Kondeti Bhupal Reddy .. Petitioner AND The General Manager, Warangal District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Subedari, Hanamkonda and another .. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAJASHEKER REDDY Writ Petition No.35197 of 2013 ORDER:
This writ petition is filed for declaring the action of the 1st respondent in issuing the impugned memo bearing No.Rc.No.Admn/HRD-1/05913/2013-14, dated 05-09-2013 is arbitrary and without jurisdiction.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that he joined in the services of the respondent Bank on 11-03-1977 and worked in the Bank in various capacities to the utmost satisfaction of the higher officials and retired from service on 30-11-2008. It is stated that the respondent bank on his retirement on superannuation released all his retirement benefits after obtaining No Due Certificate from all branches and after verifying all necessary reports such as quarterly and annually Audi Reports and Inspection Reports of NABARD, APCOB, Cooperative Department and DCCB Bank. It is stated that the petitioner deposited his retirement benefits in the respondent bank for an amount of Rs.2,51,292/- through different FDRs on different dates, apart from availing locker facility bearing No.72 during his tenure, which is being continued after retirement. When the petitioner approached the 2nd respondent-bank to withdraw the said deposits for his needs, the 2nd respondent-bank refused to operate his saving bank account, fixed deposit account as well as his locker and when he approached the 2nd respondent for the reason, the 2nd respondent served a xerox copy of the impugned proceedings dated 05-09-2013 directing all Managers to stop the operation of the petitioner’s bank account and other facilities. The petitioner made a representation to the 1st respondent-General Manager on 29-10-2013, but no orders are passed. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when once an employee is retired from service, no disciplinary action can be initiated nor continued unless any rule or bye-law of the Organisation is contemplated in the Service Rules. He also contends that there is no bye-law or rule empowering the respondent bank to initiate disciplinary proceedings against a retired employee that too after lapse of a period of five years from the date of retirement. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the order of this Court in W.P.No.2409 of 2005 dated 19-06-2005, which is affirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1911 of 2005. He also placed a judgment of this Court in W.A.No.183 of 2005 dated 08-02-2005 and the order dated 31-10- 2011 in W.A.No.162 of 2001. He further contended that the petitioner retired from service on 30-11-2008 and he was paid retirement benefits.
4. On the other hand, the learned standing counsel for the respondent bank only states that since irregularities are detected after retirement of the petitioner, the impugned proceedings were issued not only to the petitioner but also to other employees. He also contends that notice was issued to the petitioner before conducting the enquiry.
5. Since the only issue that needs to be considered in the writ petition is whether the respondent bank can initiate disciplinary proceedings or conduct any enquiry against the petitioner who retired from service on 30-11-2008 that too after lapse of a period of four years, the learned standing counsel for the respondent bank is not able to place any rule or bye-law empowering the respondent bank to initiate disciplinary proceedings against a retired employee.
6. Since there is no rule or bye-law empowering the respondent bank to initiate any proceedings or conduct any enquiry after retirement of an employee and in view of the law laid down by this court in the judgments cited supra, the lis in the present writ petition is squarely covered by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1911 of 2011, and hence, the writ petition deserves to be allowed.
7. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned Memo No.Rc.No.Admn/HRD-1/05913/2013-14, dated 05-09-2013 issued by the 1st respondent is set aside insofar as the petitioner is concerned. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions if any pending shall stand closed.
A. RAJASHEKER REDDY, J Date: 15-04-2014 Ksn