CWP No. 20137-2017 and connected cases 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. CWP No. 20137-2017 (O&M) Manvinder Singh Kang ....Petitioner vs. Punjab and Sind Bank and anr. ...Respondents 2. CWP No. 20734-2017 (O&M) Sudesh Kumar ....Petitioner vs. Punjab and Sind Bank and anr. ...Respondents 3. CWP No. 21441-2017 (O&M) Ashok Kumar Singla ....Petitioner vs. Punjab and Sind Bank and anr. ...Respondents 4. CWP No. 19884-2017 (O&M) Gurcharan Singh ....Petitioner vs. Punjab and Sind Bank and anr. ...Respondents 5. CWP No. 21386-2017 (O&M) Balwinder Singh ....Petitioner vs. Punjab and Sind Bank and anr. ...Respondents Date of Reserve: 14.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 23.07.2026 Uploaded on:- 24.07.2026 Whether only the operative part of the judgment is pronounced? No Whether full judgment is pronounced? Yes GAURAV ARORA 2026.07.24 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No. 20137-2017 and connected cases 2 CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. P.S. Thiara, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP No. 20137 and 19884 of 2017. Mr. Tushar Garg, Advocate for Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP No. 20734 and 21386 of 2017. None for the petitioner in CWP No. 21441-2017. Mr. R. Kartikeya, Advocate for the respondents. * * * SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Since the issue involved in all the above referred to five civil writ petitions is same, therefore, the above referred to five civil writ petitions are decided, vide this common order. 2. Challenge in all the writ petitions is to charge-sheet/memorandum dated 15.11.2016 issued by the respondent-Bank to the retired employees of the bank (petitioners herein) for the event which took place more than four years prior to the issuance of the charge-sheet/memorandum. 3. The only question involved in the above referred to five civil writ petitions is as to whether the charge-sheet/memorandum can be issued to retired employees of the bank for the event which took place more than four years prior to the issuance of the charge-sheet/memorandum. 4. Admittedly, as per the facts of all the writ petitions, charge- sheet/memorandum was issued to the petitioners after their retirement for the lapses/irregularities which occurred four years prior to the issuance of charge-sheet/memorandum. 5. Vide order dated 13.09.2017, the Co-ordinate Bench of this GAURAV ARORA 2026.07.24 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No. 20137-2017 and connected cases 3 Court (in CWP No. 20734-2017) stayed the further proceedings on the basis of charge sheet dated 15.11.2016. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner (s) contends that charge- sheet/memorandum dated 15.11.2016 could not be issued to the retired employees (petitioners herein) for the event which took place more than four years prior to the issuance of the charge-sheet/memorandum as per Regulations 48 (2) of the Punjab and Sind Bank (Employees’) Pension Regulations, 1995 referred to above. 7. To support the arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner (s) relies upon Division Bench judgment of this Court in a case of Balkishan Sobti vs. Punjab and Sind Bank and others, passed in LPA No. 503-2016, decided on 06.05.2022 and judgment of Delhi High Court in a case of Punjab and Sind Bank vs. Nand Lal Phatnani, Harinder Pal Singh, Paramjit Singh Anand, Parminder Singh, Harpreet Singh Makkar, 2015 (3) CLR 709. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents is unable to dispute Regulations 48 (2) of the Punjab and Sind Bank (Employees’) Pension Regulations, 1995. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole file of this case with their able assistance. 10. Before proceeding further, it would be apposite to reproduce regulation 48 (2) of the Punjab and Sind Bank (Employees’) Pension Regulations, 1995. The same reads as under:- GAURAV ARORA 2026.07.24 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No. 20137-2017 and connected cases 4 “48. Recovery of Pecuniary loss caused to the Bank:- (1) The competent authority may withhold or withdraw a pension or a part thereof, whether permanently or for a specified period, and order recovery from pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Bank if in any departmental or judicial proceedings the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence or criminal breach of trust or forgery or acts done fraudulently during the period of his service. Provided that the Board shall be consulted before any final orders are passed. Provided further that departmental proceedings, if instituted while the employee was in service, shall, after the retirement of the employee, be deemed to be proceedings under these regulations and shall be continued and concluded by the authority by which they were commenced in the same manner as if the employee had continued in service. (2) No departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the employee was in service, shall be instituted in respect of an event which took place GAURAV ARORA 2026.07.24 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No. 20137-2017 and connected cases 5 more than four years before such institution; Provided that the disciplinary proceedings so instituted shall be in accordance with the procedure applicable to disciplinary proceedings in relation to the employee during the period of his service. (3) Where the Competent Authority orders recovery of pecuniary loss from the pension, the recovery shall not ordinarily be made at a rate exceeding one-third of the pension admissible on the date of retirement of employee; Provided that where a part of pension is withheld or withdrawn, the amount of pension drawn of a pensioner shall not be less than the minimum pension payable under these regulations.” 11. A bare reading of Regulations 48 (2) of the Punjab and Sind Bank (Employees’) Pension Regulations, 1995 referred to above shows that there is specific bar regarding the departmental proceedings for the event which took place more than four years before such Institution. 12. Admittedly, in the present case, all the petitioners in all the writ petitions retired from the service and after retirement, charge sheet (s) is issued to them for the event which took place more than four years prior to the issuance of the charge-sheet/memorandum. 13. The issue involved in all the writ petitions is no more res integra since Division Bench of this Court in Balkishan Sobti vs. Punjab GAURAV ARORA 2026.07.24 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No. 20137-2017 and connected cases 6 and Sind Bank and others, passed in LPA No. 503-2016, decided on 06.05.2022 has decided the same issue against the same respondents as in the present writ petitions i.e Punjab and Sind Bank after taking into consideration Regulation 48 (2) of the Punjab and Sind Bank (Employees’) Pension Regulations, 1995 which bars initiation of proceedings for the event which occurred more than four years before initiation. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as under:- 5. It is a matter of record that the main allegations were against one Nachhatar Singh, who was the Ex-Manager (EDP) and retired on 31.08.2007. It has been argued that the appellant-petitioner was neither a defendant in the civil suit filed against Nachhatar Singh by the bank and nor he had been arrayed as an accused in the criminal case which had been registered against Nachhatar Singh. The petitioner was thereafter departmentally charge sheeted on 26.11.2015 (Annexure P-3) and resultantly, approached this Court on the strength of Regulations 48 of the 1995 Regulations. The same read as under:- “48. Recovery of Pecuniary loss caused to the Bank:- (1) The competent authority may withhold or withdraw a pension or a part thereof, whether permanently or for a specified period, and order recovery from pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Bank if in any GAURAV ARORA 2026.07.24 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No. 20137-2017 and connected cases 7 departmental or judicial proceedings the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence or criminal breach of trust or forgery or acts done fraudulently during the period of his service. Provided that the Board shall be consulted before any final orders are passed. Provided further that departmental proceedings, if instituted while the employee was in service, shall, after the retirement of the employee, be deemed to be proceedings under these regulations and shall be continued and concluded by the authority by which they were commenced in the same manner as if the employee had continued in service. (2) No departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the employee was in service, shall be instituted in respect of an event which took place more than four years before such institution; Provided that the disciplinary proceedings so instituted shall be in accordance with the procedure applicable to disciplinary proceedings in relation to the employee during the period of his service. (3) Where the Competent Authority orders GAURAV ARORA 2026.07.24 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No. 20137-2017 and connected cases 8 recovery of pecuniary loss from the pension, the recovery shall not ordinarily be made at a rate exceeding one-third of the pension admissible on the date of retirement of employee; Provided that where a part of pension is withheld or withdrawn, the amount of pension drawn of a pensioner shall not be less than the minimum pension payable under these regulations.” 6. A perusal of the above would go on to show that there is a bar as such if the proceedings are not instituted while the employee was in service, for events which took place more than four years before such initiation. The purpose as such is apparently clear that it is to protect retirees as such and does not permit the bank as such to initiate such departmental proceedings after the fixed time frame. 7. Counsel has also relied upon the judgment of Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in LPA No. 673 of 2015, Punjab & Sind Bank vs. Nand Lal Phatnani decided on 09.10.2015 (Annexure P-6). The Division Bench was dealing with the same regulation itself which is a question herein also and came to the same conclusion that the power of the competent authority to initiate departmental proceedings against a pensioner is curtailed under sub-Regulation 2 of Regulation 48. Resultantly, while discussing Regulation 351 of Civil Services Regulations, it came to the conclusion that it GAURAV ARORA 2026.07.24 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No. 20137-2017 and connected cases 9 was para materia with Regulation 48 and resultantly, dismissed the appeals of the bank wherein the charge sheets had been issued to the employees in question beyond a period of 4 years. 8. Similar issue has also been adjudicated by this Court wherein, Rule 2.2 (b) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules have been discussed wherein also, there is a bar as such for a period beyond 4 years. Reference can be made to the judgment of the co-ordinate Bench in O.P. Kharab vs. HVPN Ltd. and others, 2007 (2) SCT 49 wherein, it has been held as under:- “7. A perusal of the aforementioned Rule shows that the respondents could order the recovery from pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Government if a pensioner is found in a department or judicial proceedings to be guilty of grave misconduct or he had caused pecuniary loss to the Government by misconduct or negligence during his service provided that such an enquiry has been instituted during the period when the officer was on duty. However, if such an enquiry has not been instituted while the officer was on duty and before his retirement then it cannot be instituted in respect of an event which took place more than four years preceding the institution of such GAURAV ARORA 2026.07.24 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No. 20137-2017 and connected cases 10 proceedings. In other words, an enquiry can only be instituted in respect of an event which has occurred four years before the date of the institution. The explanation appended to Rule 2.2(b)(4) further clarifies that departmental proceedings would be deemed to have been instituted when the charges framed are issued to him. In other words, the date of institution of departmental proceedings would be the date when the charge-sheet is issued to the petitioner. 8. On the basis of the aforementioned principle laid down in Rule 2.2(b) it has to be concluded that the charges are more than four years old from the date the charge-sheet was issued. It is evident from the facts that the charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner on 30.11.2003 in respect of events commencing from May, 1994 to July, 1994 or at best of the year 1998. On the date of issuance of charge-sheet all those allegations were in respect of an event which has occurred more than four years ago. The principle adopted in explanation to Rule 2.2(b)(4) is a wholesome principle which has backing of judicial precedents.” 9. The defence which has been taken by the bank in the GAURAV ARORA 2026.07.24 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No. 20137-2017 and connected cases 11 written statement as such that the event can be calculated till the year 2012 which is the date of retirement is not acceptable as the details of entries alongwith the charge sheet would show that the amounts which were debited by Nachhatar Singh pertain from the period 03.12.2009 to 15.05.2010. 10. In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the events as such which had taken place, were beyond the period of 4 years and merely because the petitioner retired on 31.03.2012 would not bring it within the limitation of 4 years as per the defence which has been taken in the written statement. 11. Keeping in view the above, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge failed to exercise jurisdiction as such and has committed a serious error by not exercising the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction and permitted continuation of the departmental proceedings, which are apparently time barred. 12. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 22.01.2016 passed in CWP No. 1413 of 2016, Balkishan Sobti vs. Punjab & Sind Bank and others and by allowing the said writ petition and quashing the show cause notice dated 18.01.2014 (Annexure P-1) and charge sheet dated 26.11.2015 (Annexure P-3). 14. In view of the above referred to judgment, the writ petition (s) are allowed. GAURAV ARORA 2026.07.24 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No. 20137-2017 and connected cases 12 15. Accordingly, show cause notice dated 07.01.2015 and charge-sheet dated 15.11.2016 (CWP No. 20137-2017); memorandum dated 15.11.2016 and memorandum dated 12.04.2017 (CWP No. 20734-2017); charge-sheet dated 15.11.2016 (CWP No. 21441-2017); Show cause notice dated 07.01.2015 and charge-sheet dated 15.11.2016 (CWP No. 19884-2017) and memorandum dated 15.11.2016 and memorandum dated 12.04.2017 (CWP No. 21386-2017) are hereby set aside. 16. Pending application (s) if any, also stand disposed of. 23.07.2026 (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) Gaurav Arora JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No GAURAV ARORA 2026.07.24 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document