IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.1872 of 2018 Sumanta Kumar Nayak …. Petitioner Mr. P.C. Chhinchani, Advocate -Versus- Chairman, Utkal Grameen Bank, Bolangir & others …. Opposite Parties Mr. Kabir Kumar Jena, Advocate CORAM: JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK DATE OF HEARING:30.04.2026 DATE OF JUDGMENT:19.06.2026 1. Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner for quashing of the disciplinary proceeding initiated after his retirement being contrary to the provision of the Utkal Grameen Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Regulations’) and further to declare the memorandum of charges is framed under Annexure-4 and the impugned order of punishment imposed vide Annexure-9 is invalid and non est in the eyes of law by directing the opposite parties to pay him all retiral benefits with any such orders as may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case on the grounds stated. 2. As pleaded on record, the petitioner while serving as Branch Manager of Utkal Grameen Bank, Bhikampali Branch had gone to Jharsuguda Branch on 18th April, 2016 AFR along with the Cashier-cum-Assistant for taking remittance of cash amounting to Rs.20 lac and on the same day, the Branch Manager of Kanoktora Branch had also gone there and while he and other staff members of both the branches were carrying the remittances by hiring a Bolero vehicle, its back tyre had punctured, hence it was parked in a nearby lane for repair and after the repair work was over and by the time the vehicle was ready to move, surprisingly the cash bag containing Rs.20 lac kept inside was found missing and despite a thorough search, the same could not be traced out, hence, the FIR was lodged at Jharsuguda P.S. on the same day registered as Jharsuguda P.S. Case No.186 of 2016 under Section 379 I.P.C and thereafter informed the matter to the Regional Manager, Sambalpur by letter dated 20th April, 2016 as at Annexure-1. Thereafter, the petitioner was placed under suspension by opposite party No.2 in terms of Regulation 46 of the Regulations read with Utkal Grameen Bank Service (Amendment) Regulations, 2013 with immediate effect vide letter dated 25th April, 2016 i.e. Annexure-2. On 26th April, 2016, opposite party No.3 with reference to an earlier letter dated 29th February, 2016 issued another letter purportedly serving notice on him by invoking Section 45(3) and (4) of the Regulations as per Annexure-3. After a lapse of about six months from the date of superannuation opposite party No.2 initiated a disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner vide a Memorandum of charges dated 24th November, 2016 at Annexure-4 in terms of the Regulations enclosing the statement of imputations in support of the charges mentioning therein the list of documents and witnesses, the chargesheet calling upon him to submit defence within fifteen days of its receipt. In response to the above, the petitioner submitted the written statement of defence dated 9th December, 2016 stating therein inter alia that since he has already retired from Bank Service on 31st May, 2016, the disciplinary proceeding cannot be continued not being within the purview of the Regulations. In as much as Regulation 45(3) and (4) of the Regulations are not applicable since action was not initiated or stated to be pending before his retirement. A copy of the defence/written statement of defence dated 9th December, 2016 is at Annexure-5. However, opposite party No.2 as per Annexure-2 responded to the defence with an intimation to the petitioner that he was under suspension at the time of superannuation and for the purpose of disciplinary proceedings, it should be deemed to have been commenced from the date of suspension and in such case the chargesheet can be issued even after retirement in terms of Regulation 45(1) of the Regulations. The petitioner since retired from service and left with no source of income approached opposite party No.1 with such grievance by a representation dated 28th January, 2017 and further intimated that under such circumstances, the terminal benefits cannot be held up for an indefinite period. Merely because, he was placed under suspension while in service without any charges framed within the said period and requested for release of all such service benefits like gratuity, leave encashment, CPF within a reasonable time. A copy of the said representation dated 28th January, 2017 by the petitioner to opposite party No.1 is at Annexure-7. 2.1. It is pleaded that order of suspension itself cannot be taken as initiation of disciplinary proceeding, which commences with the issuance of charge memo and statement of imputations and therefore, it cannot be deemed that the disciplinary proceeding had started and continued even after retirement and in so far as Annexure-6 is concerned, it deserves to be read down being contrary to Regulation 45(3) of the Regulations. Furthermore, the Memorandum of Charges i.e. Annexure-4 have been admittedly framed and issued on 24th November, 2016 much after retirement of the petitioner and hence, it cannot be said that the disciplinary proceeding was initiated, instituted or pending while he was in service and therefore, such proceeding invoking Regulation 45(3) of the Regulations is per se illegal, invalid and thus, liable to be quashed. 2.2. The impugned charge under Annexure-4 is illegally framed by opposite party No.2 in gross violation of Regulation 45(1) of the Regulations and it was proceeded as ex parte calling upon the petitioner to show cause, as to why, the proposed penalty of dismissal from service and forfeiture of gratuity besides the period of suspension not to be treated as such and to not earn any benefit/increment during such period by letter dated 25th April, 2018 i.e. Annexure-8. Page 5 of 23 3. Even though, the lis between the parties is with regard to competence of opposite party No.1 to initiate departmental action, jurisdiction and maintainability of the disciplinary proceeding was subjudice as on 7th July, 2018, the Authority concerned imposed a major penalty of dismissal from service of the petitioner vide Annexure-9. It is alleged that the other Bank Official, who was also placed under suspension along with the petitioner on the same date i.e. 27th April, 2016 for the self-same misconduct and was subjected to disciplinary proceeding while in service at the time of issuance of charge memo was removed from service with effect from 25th June, 2018 by the Disciplinary Authority but thereafter, the Appellate Authority as per the Staff Circular No.06 of 2019 (Annexure-10 series) directed his reinstatement after revoking the penalty and therefore, in the case at hand, the opposite parties cannot be permitted to resort to selective discriminatory treatment in the matter of imposition of penalty and hence, an impugned order of dismissal from service vide Annexure-9 is liable to be interfered with as it cannot be justified on the face of the order of reinstatement in favour of the other official under Annexure-10 series. Lastly, it is pleaded that the impugned disciplinary proceeding is vitiated by lack of jurisdiction and not being in consonance with the Regulations and therefore, the punishment vide Annexure-9 deserves to be quashed in the interest of justice. 4. The opposite parties filed the counter affidavit and justified the action with the disciplinary proceeding initiated against the petitioner pleading therein that even after a lapse of six months of his superannuation, opposite party No.2 rightly initiated the disciplinary proceeding with a chargesheet issued by claiming that any such delay by itself does not render the proceeding vitiated moreover when, there is no explanation coming forth causing him any prejudice due to the alleged delay. 5. The petitioner admitted the chargesheet having been received by him enclosed with the statement of imputations, list of documents and witnesses etc. served by the Bank and hence, opportunity was given to him to defend by following the principles of natural justice and with regard to the financial loss of Rs.20 lac, it was a matter of serious concern, which speaks of the security lapses during transportation of the remittances and it has greatly tarnished the image of the Bank in the public. 5.1. For the purpose of departmental proceeding, the action was initiated in terms of Regulation 45(3) read with Regulation 10(2) of the Regulations as both the provisions are to be read in harmony. Which leads to conclusion that an Officer or Employee of the Bank placed under suspension is deemed to be under the cloud of disciplinary proceeding and mere retirement would not resort in cessation of the employer and employee relationship for the purpose of continuation/ initiation of such proceeding and for the said purpose, the petitioner is continued to be in service. Since, the petitioner was placed under suspension and duly intimated to him about contemplation of the disciplinary proceeding by letter dated 25th April, 2016 i.e. Annexure-A, the Competent Authority is therefore empowered under the Regulation to initiate/continue with the disciplinary proceeding even after his retirement. Therefore, any such grounds as advanced challenging the maintainability of the proceeding are bereft of any substance. 5.2. The Departmental Inquiry was initiated and continued without participation of the petitioner, despite issuance of notice to him vide Annexures- B to G but he neither cooperated with the departmental inquiry nor submitted any reply against the finding of the inquiry and the show cause notice issued to him in connection therewith on the proposed penalty and therefore, he has no locus standi to challenge the chargesheet. Furthermore, the other Branch Manager, who was travelling in the same vehicle at the relevant point of time and was having a cash of Rs.10 lac, which is half of the amount lying with the petitioner and was responsible enough to keep the bag with him when he got down from the vehicle but the latter having shown a lack of responsibility leaving the cash bag in that vehicle, rightly, the disciplinary proceeding was initiated, as the above facts are revealed from the FIR itself. 6. An additional counter affidavit is filed by the opposite parties and it has been pleaded therein that issuance of show cause notice to the petitioner by opposite party No.2 cannot be faulted with, as he being the Appointing Authority did possess the jurisdiction in view of Regulation 5 of the Regulations. Referring to the extant Service Regulations, it is pleaded that the General Manager is the Competent Authority in respect of Officers of Scale-I and Scale-II, as necessary amendment has been effected therein by a notification dated 28th February,2014 as at Annexure-A thereto. Referring to a decision of the Apex Court in Balbir Chand Vrs. Food Corporation of India Limited and others AIR 1997 SC 2229, it is pleaded further that the petitioner has not satisfactorily proved any prejudice to have been caused to him with issuance of impugned show cause notice by opposite parties. 6.1. The reinstatement of a clerical staff of the Bank, the continuation of disciplinary proceeding and its closure during the pendency of the lis in absence of any stay granted by this Court and therefore, there was no any restriction to impose penalty on the petitioner. Furthermore, parity cannot be claimed in view of the reinstatement of a clerical staff of the Bank as the petitioner was holding a higher post being a Branch Manager and, in that connection, Circular dated 2nd August, 2012 at Annexure-C is referred to and therefore, awarding any lesser punishment to the staff, no illegality has been committed as a result. Lastly, it is reiterated that Regulation 45 of the Regulations duly authorizes the Bank to continue with the disciplinary proceeding even after the petitioner’s retirement and hence, no fault can be found with the course of action followed by it. 7. Mr. Chhinchani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jena, learned counsel for the opposite parties. Page 9 of 23 8. In support of the contentions advanced from the side of the petitioner, Mr. Chhinchani, learned counsel appearing for him cited the following decisions in UCO Bank & others Vrs. M.B. Motwani (Dead) through legal representatives & others (2024) 13 SCC 109 and Magadh Sugar & Energy Ltd. Vrs. State of Bihar and others (2022) 16 SCC 428 besides UCO Bank & another Vrs. Rajinder Lal Capoor AIR 2007 SC 2129 and Canara Bank Vrs. D.R.P. Sundaram (2016) 12 SCC 724. On the other hand, Mr. Jena, learned counsel for the opposite parties besides the case laws pleaded on record relied on a decision of the Apex Court in Union of India and others Vrs. Major General Sri Kant Sharma and another AIR 2015 SC 2465 to submit that the writ petition should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation. 9. Admittedly, the disciplinary proceeding was concluded ex parte. The petitioner said not to have participated in the proceeding primarily on the ground that he had retired from service and hence, not amenable to the Regulations having been served with a charge memo post-retirement. The other grounds raised by the petitioner may be discussed at a latter stage. The contention of Mr. Chhinchani, learned counsel is that any such departmental action with service of a chargesheet after superannuation of the petitioner cannot be sustained since, it is not envisaged under the Regulations. It is contended that the Disciplinary Authority does not have the competence and jurisdiction to initiate the disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner as on a sincere reading of Regulation 45 of the Regulations makes it abundantly clear that it deals with the continuation and conclusion of such proceeding with a final order therein and hence, the same does not relate to initiation of proceeding. It is further contended that the impugned disciplinary proceeding can only be held to have been initiated when the chargesheet was issued i.e. on 24th November, 2026 and it was latter to his retirement from service and as per the trite law such initiation of the proceeding cannot be said to have commenced from the time of suspension. The contention is that the petitioner retired from service with effect from 31st May, 2016 and the disciplinary proceeding with a Charge Memo was initiated on 24th November, 2016 much after his superannuation and therefore, it cannot be said to have been continued and concluded in terms of Regulation 45(3) of the Regulations. 10. In response to the above, Mr. Jena, learned counsel for the opposite parties submits that with the suspension of the petitioner, since the disciplinary action was contemplated notwithstanding the Charge Memo served on him after retirement in view of Regulation 45 of the Regulations, it shall be deemed to have been initiated while he was in service and therefore, there is no illegality committed by the Bank. A reference has been made to Regulation 10(2) of the Regulations to further submit that it can be invoked in respect of an Officer and employee of the Bank placed under suspension and therefore, he is liable to the disciplinary proceeding. Page 11 of 23 11. It is profitable to reproduce the relevant provision or the Resolutions and hence, are extracted hereinbelow. “10. Termination of Service by Notice-(1) xxx (2) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in sub-regulation (1), an officer or employee against whom disciplinary proceeding is contemplated or pending shall not leave, discontinue or resign from his service in the Bank without the prior approval of the Appointing Authority and any notice of resignation given by such officer or employee before or during the disciplinary proceeding shall not take effect unless it is accepted by the Competent Authority. Explanation: For the purposes of this regulation, disciplinary proceeding shall be deemed to be contemplated or pending against an officer or employee if he has been placed under suspension or any notice has been issued to him to show cause why disciplinary proceeding should not be instituted against him until final order are passed by the Competent Authority.” xxx 45.Disciplinary proceedings after retirement-(1) An officer or employee who is under suspension on a charge of misconduct and who attains the age of superannuation, shall be deemed to be in service even after the age of superannuation for the specific purpose of continuation and conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings and issue of final orders thereon. (2) The officer or employee who is under suspension shall not be eligible for any subsistence allowance for the period beyond the date of superannuation. (3) The officer or employee against whom disciplinary proceeding has been initiated shall cease to be in service on the date of superannuation but the disciplinary proceeding shall continue as if he was in service until the proceedings are concluded and final order is passed in respect thereof. (4) The officer or employee against whom disciplinary proceedings has been initiated shall not receive any pay and/or allowances after the date of superannuation and also not be entitled for the payment of retirement benefits till the proceeding is completed and final order is passed thereon except his own contribution to Contributory Provident Fund (CPF). Explanation: For the purposes of this regulation, the normal retirement benefits such as encashment of privilege leave and gratuity may be withheld till the completion of the disciplinary proceeding and passing of final order by the Competent Authority and the release of benefits shall be as per the final order of the Competent Authority.” 12. On a reading of the above provision, it is made to understand that any Officer or Employee may leave or discontinue his service in the Bank with a prior notice and subject to compliance of Rule-10 (c) of the Regulations. But Sub-Regulation (2) thereof is an exception to the above, according to which, an Officer or Employee against whom disciplinary proceeding is contemplated or pending shall not be allowed to leave, discontinue or resign from service without prior approval of the Appointing Authority and any notice of resignation received either before or during such proceeding shall not take effect unless it is accepted by the Competent Authority. In that context, on a further reading of the Explanation appended thereto, it shall have to be understood to the effect that a disciplinary proceeding shall be deemed to be contemplated or pending against an Officer or Employee, if he has been placed under suspension or any notice was issued to him to show cause why disciplinary proceeding should not be initiated against him until final order by the Competent Authority. In the humble view of the Court, referring to Regulation 10(2) Explanation (a), by no stretch of imagination, it shall be deemed that initiation of a departmental proceeding shall be held to have commenced from the date of suspension order or any such notice issued to an Officer or Employee of the Bank to show cause why such a proceeding shall not be initiated. In fact, Regulation 10(2) relates to termination of service by a notice and for the said purpose, it shall be deemed that the same shall apply to an Officer or Employee of the Bank if he has been placed under suspension or served with a notice to show cause why a disciplinary proceeding shall not be commenced and until a final order by the Competent Authority in that regard. It has to be understood that an Officer or Employee shall leave or discontinue his service in the Bank or resign only upon complying Regulation 10(1) (a),(b) of the Regulations and it would not be permissible unless the same is proved by the Competent Authority in terms of Sub-Regulation (2) thereof when he is under suspension and in contemplation of a departmental action or notice has been issued to him to show cause why proceeding under the Regulations shall not be initiated in according with Regulation 45 after retirement. So, therefore, the contention of Mr. Jena, learned counsel for the opposite parties that a Departmental Proceeding shall be deemed to have been initiated and continued on and from the date of suspension of the petitioner referring to Regulation 10(2) of the Regulations is misconceived. 13. It is apposite to make a mention of the decision in Rajinder Lal Capoor (supra), wherein, the Apex Court dealing with in an identical case under the UCO Bank Officer Employees’ Service Regulations, 1979 and therein, it has been observed that a proceeding against a retired Bank Official cannot be initiated and continued in terms of Regulation 20 thereof. Referring to Regulation 20 (3)(iii) of the said Regulations, it was concluded that a legal fiction has been created, which shall have to be given full effect, however, could only be invoked when the disciplinary proceeding had clearly been initiated prior to cessation of service, it is profitable to extract the relevant observations therein and the same is set out hereinbelow; “21. The aforementioned Regulation, however, could be invoked only when the disciplinary proceedings had clearly been initiated prior to the respondent's ceasing to be in service. The terminologies used therein are of seminal importance. Only when a disciplinary proceeding has been initiated against an officer of the bank despite his attaining the age of superannuation, can the disciplinary proceeding be allowed on the basis of the legal fiction created thereunder i.e. continue “as if he was in service”. Thus, only when a valid departmental proceeding is initiated by reason of the legal fiction raised in terms of the said provision, the delinquent officer would be deemed to be in service although he has reached his age of superannuation. The departmental proceeding, it is trite law, is not initiated merely by issuance of a show-cause notice. It is initiated only when a chargesheet is issued (see Union of India etc. etc. v. K.V. Jankiraman etc. etc., reported in AIR 1991 SC 2010. This aspect of the matter has also been considered by this Court recently in Coal India Ltd. & others v. Saroj Kumar Mishra 2007 (5) SCALE 724 wherein it was held that date of application of mind on the allegations levelled against an officer by the competent authority as a result whereof a chargesheet is issued would be the date on which the disciplinary proceedings are said to have been initiated and not prior thereto. Pendency of a preliminary enquiry, therefore, by itself cannot be a ground for invoking Clause 20 of the Regulations. Albeit in a different fact situation but involving a similar question of law in Coal India Ltd. (supra) this Court held: “13. It is not the case of the appellants that pursuant to or in furtherance of the complaint received by the Vigilance Department, the competent authority had arrived at a satisfaction as is required in terms of the said circulars that a chargesheet was likely to be issued on the basis of a preliminary enquiry held in that behalf or otherwise. 14. The circular letters issued by the appellants put restrictions on a valuable right of an employee. They, therefore, are required to be construed strictly. So construed, there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the conditions precedent contained therein must be satisfied before any action can be taken in that regard.” It was furthermore observed that: “20. A departmental proceeding is ordinarily said to be initiated only when a chargesheet is issued. See also Union of India v. Sangram Keshari Nayak 2007 (6) SCALE 348.” 14. In D.R.P. Sundaram (supra), it has been held by the Apex Court that the decision in Rajinder Lal Capoor (supra) is the correct proposition of law, hence, it needs no revisit. In fact, a reference was made to a Larger Bench of the Apex Court to consider the judgment in Rajinder Lal Capoor whether lays down the correct law with reference to the provisions of the Canara Bank Officers’ Service Regulations, 1979 and in the end, it has been concluded that a disciplinary proceeding initiated by means of a chargesheet prior to retirement of a Bank employee would continue even after his retirement in view of the demining provision contained in Regulation 20(3)(iii) of the said Regulations. Referring to the decisions (supra), Mr. Chhinchani, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was although placed under suspension but no disciplinary proceeding had been initiated prior to his retirement. In as much as, a charge memo was issued and served on him nearly six months after retirement and therefore, the disciplinary proceeding could not have continued after such retirement invoking Regulation 45(3) of the said Regulations. 15. In the considered view of the Court, it is an absolute necessity for a chargesheet to be formally issued and served to a Bank Officer before superannuation. In other words, if a Charge Memo is not furnished to the delinquent prior to retirement, the Departmental Action cannot be instituted or continued post-superannuation regardless whether, the employee of the Bank was under suspension. Inf act, initiation of disciplinary proceedings depends on the following legal parameters. It is sine qua non that the disciplinary proceedings are not deemed initiated merely by issuing a show cause notice or placing an employee under suspension. The proceedings shall legally commence only on the date of a formal chargesheet issued and served on the delinquent employee. It is no doubt that once the employee attains the age of superannuation and retires, the master- servant relationship ceases but a disciplinary action can only be continued post-retirement if it was legally pending prior to the retirement and therefore, without a chargesheet in place. There are no pending proceedings to carry forward. On a reading of Regulation 45 of the Regulations, it is clear and conspicuous that a disciplinary proceeding shall continue even after retirement of an Officer or employee of the Bank but the exception being that there is already a chargesheet served on him before the date of superannuation. According to the Court, the Bank cannot extend the retirement date or bypass the deadline to salvage a delayed chargesheet, if a Bank attempts to continue or initiate departmental action without meeting the above requirements, any such disciplinary proceedings initiated post-retirement serving a chargesheet shall have to be intervened and set at naught. On a meticulous reading of decisions (supra), it is an established law that the disciplinary proceedings are not initiated merely by a suspension order or a show cause notice or a preliminary inquiry but are only deemed instituted or pending to be continued when a formal chargesheet is issued and served to the employees of the Bank before their retirement. 16. To sum up the departmental proceedings are not commenced merely by a suspension order or a show-cause notice issued and are only deemed to have been instituted when a formal charge memo is issued and served on the employee before retirement. If the official or employee retires on superannuation without a chargesheet having been submitted, according to the Court, the bank loses the authority to initiate or continue the departmental proceeding. If the chargesheet is submitted prior to the retirement date under Regulation 45 of the Regulations, the employee’s service is fictionally extended post superannuation solely to allow the departmental proceeding to conclude with final orders therein even though ceased to be in the service of the bank. In other words, the disciplinary proceedings can only deem to be pending and continued post-retirement only if a formal chargesheet has been issued and served upon the official or employee of the bank prior to his superannuation. It is to be borne in mind that the suspension of an employee is directed to in contemplation of initiation of a departmental proceeding. It may so happen that no departmental action is continued even after the suspension order. At times upon receiving notice to show- cause as to why a departmental proceeding shall not be vitiated, the Disciplinary Authority upon receiving reply and response could possibly drop the action contemplated and revoked such suspension. It entirely depends on the reply of the delinquent that determines the course of action by the Disciplinary Authority. Such claim that the disciplinary proceeding deemed to have commenced from the time of suspension of an employee is misconceived. Merely placing an employee or official of a bank under suspension in terms of the Regulations does not equate to initiate departmental action. Rather the disciplinary process is legally initiated only upon the framing of articles of charge. At that stage when the charges framed and served on a delinquent, it is said that the disciplinary proceeding is commenced. At the cost of repetition, it is stated that Regulation 45 of the Regulations contains a legal fiction and it allows the suspended employee to be deemed in service past his retirement date specifically to conclude already pending disciplinary action and it applies only if the chargesheet was issued while he was in active service. Such is the conclusion of the Court in view of the decisions in Rajinder Lal Capoor and D.R.P. Sundharam (supra), wherein, the Apex Court strictly ruled that a Bank has no authority to institute or continue a departmental enquiry up to the date of superannuation if no chargesheet was served before the retirement of the employee. If the bank fails to submit and serve the chargesheet on the official or employee before the date of superannuation, it has to be held that the master- servant relationship terminates and the departmental action becomes legally invalid allowing them to receive their full terminal benefits. This aspect has not been examined by the Disciplinary Authority in the case of the petitioner and, therefore, it is justified to claim that the departmental action could not have been continued in absence of a chargesheet served on him while he was in service. 17. The contention of Mr. Jena, learned counsel for the opposite parties referring to Regulation 10 of the Regulations by claiming that the deeming fiction applies in respect of the departmental proceeding from the date of suspension is unacceptable. As earlier discussed Regulation 10 deals with termination of service by a notice and therein by a legal fiction disciplinary proceeding shall be deemed to be contemplated or pending against an officer or an employee if he has been faced on suspension or issued with a notice of show-cause why it shall not be initiated until a final order is passed by the competent authority notwithstanding such Sub-Regulation(1) thereof which allows one to leave or discontinue his service in the bank with a prior notice of three months in case of a confirmed officer/employee and one month in respect of probationers. The said Regulation is limited to the purpose specified in the Regulation and not to be read along with Regulation 45 of the Regulations. For a disciplinary proceeding after the retirement, Regulation 45 specifies that it shall be deemed that the officer or employee to be in service even after the age of superannuation for the specific purpose of continuation and conclusion of the disciplinary proceeding and until a final order is passed therein. The expression ‘continuation and conclusion’ means not only related with suspension order while in service but also includes commencement of the departmental action with a charge memo furnished to the delinquent and it has to be prior to the date of retirement and not later. Such a reading and interpretation of Regulation 45 shall have to be resorted to simply for the reason that a disciplinary action does not begin with a suspension order which may ultimately be revoked without a proceeding initiated under the Regulations. Considering the law settled whether this Court in D.R.P. Sundharam (supra) on a reference to a larger Bench upholding the view expressed in Rajinder Lal Capoor case with reference to service Regulations of the Officers of the Canara Bank pari materia to the Regulations under consideration before this Court it has been concluded that it was not permissible for opposite party No.1 to proceed with departmental action without a chargesheet submitted to the petitioner while he was in service. It is not in dispute that after six months of retirement, the petitioner who was though under suspension while in active service was served with the charge memo and, therefore, in absence of a chargesheet by 31st May, 2016, any such decision of the Disciplinary Authority to proceed against him under the Regulations is legally untenable. 18. The jurisdiction of the competent authority in violation of Regulation 45(1) of the Regulations needs no discussion and this Court has arrived at a definite conclusion that the disciplinary proceeding after retirement of the petitioner is not permissible. Reference has been made to the amendment to the Regulations referring to Annexure-A, but there is no need for considering the same when the action of opposite party No.1 with a disciplinary proceeding initiated under the Regulations is found to be flawed. Similarly, the other ground that in absence of any stay order and mere pendency of the lis before this Court could not have prevented opposite party No.1 to proceed with the departmental action has lost its relevance when the very initiation of the proceeding after the retirement is considered illegal. Likewise, the other ground in relation to lesser punishment imposed and the plea that there has been disproportionate punishment inflicted upon the petitioner without extending parity does not require any determination when the action under the Regulation held to be bad in law. After having gone through the additional counter and rejoinder affidavit filed by the respective parties, this Court arrives at an irresistible conclusion that opposite party No.1 lacked jurisdiction to proceed against the petitioner in the departmental action under the Regulations, any such decision imposing penalty on him vide Annexure-9 is liable to be declared as non est in the eyes of law and hence, it shall have to be quashed. 19. Accordingly, it is ordered. 20. In the result, the writ petition stands allowed. As a necessary corollary, the impugned order of punishment imposed vide Annexure-9 is hereby set aside and formally quashed for the reasons discussed and stated hereinabove. Consequently, opposite party No.1 shall do well to pass appropriate order or issue direction for termination of the departmental action against the petitioner ensuring release of all service benefits admissible to him in his favour at the earliest preferably within three weeks soon after receiving a copy of this judgment. (R.K. Pattanaik) Judge Balaram Designation: Junior Stenographer