Disciplinary proceedings after superannuation may continue under service rules, and bank misconduct stands despite no proved loss.

Applicable service rules may permit disciplinary proceedings started before superannuation to continue through an extended period of service and conclude in dismissal, where the employee is treated as remaining in service for that limited purpose. In bank employment, serious dishonesty, acting beyond authority, and mishandling customer funds constitute misconduct in themselves; the absence of proved financial loss or a later withdrawal of grievance does not negate the misconduct or reduce its gravity. The framework described treats the continuation of enquiry as valid when supported by the governing statutory rules, and the misconduct remains actionable notwithstanding the absence of pecuniary loss.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether disciplinary proceedings initiated before superannuation could validly continue and culminate in dismissal during the extended period of service under the applicable service rules. (ii) Whether the absence of loss to the bank or the complainant's subsequent withdrawal of grievance could negate the misconduct and invalidate the dismissal.

Issue (i): Whether disciplinary proceedings initiated before superannuation could validly continue and culminate in dismissal during the extended period of service under the applicable service rules.

Analysis: The governing service framework empowered the bank to grant extension of service and to continue disciplinary proceedings against an employee whose service had otherwise ceased, treating him as in service for the limited purpose of continuation and conclusion of such proceedings. The relevant rules were framed under the statutory power conferred by Section 43 of the State Bank of India Act, 1955, and operated independently of the regulation-making power under Section 50. Since the employee was granted extension to facilitate completion of the pending enquiry and never questioned the proceedings during their continuance, the earlier view that proceedings ceased with superannuation was inapplicable.

Conclusion: The disciplinary proceedings and the dismissal order were validly continued and were not vitiated on the ground of superannuation.

Issue (ii): Whether the absence of loss to the bank or the complainant's subsequent withdrawal of grievance could negate the misconduct and invalidate the dismissal.

Analysis: The charges concerned serious acts of dishonesty by a bank officer, who is required to maintain the highest standards of integrity and discipline. In bank service, acting beyond authority and mishandling customer funds constitute misconduct by themselves. The fact that no pecuniary loss was ultimately shown, or that the complainant later expressed no further claim, did not erase the wrongful conduct or dilute the gravity of the charges.

Conclusion: The dismissal could not be disturbed on the ground that no loss was caused or that the complainant withdrew his grievance.

Final Conclusion: The impugned judgment was set aside and the bank's action of dismissal was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the applicable service rules authorize continuation of disciplinary proceedings after cessation of service, such proceedings may validly be concluded after superannuation, and in bank employment serious misconduct is not effaced merely because no financial loss is proved.

---