TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (2) TMI 2061
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rder of the High Court does not call for any interference. 2. The allegation against Shukla was that while in charge of the extension counter of the UCO Bank from 3rd October, 1987 to 8th July, 1994 he issued a cheque on 25th January, 1991 for an amount of Rs. 3 lakhs in favour of his brother. At that time, Shukla had only about Rs. 1,000/- in his account. We are only concerned with this broad allegation. 3. Shukla was issued a charge sheet on 20th May, 1998 (after about 7 years) by the Respondent (Bank) under the provisions of the UCO Bank Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulations, 1976. The articles of charge against Shukla were as follows: (I) Shri R.S. Shukla issued/got issued a cheque on his joint account without making any arra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r against whom disciplinary proceedings have been initiated will cease to be in service on the date of superannuation but the disciplinary proceedings will continue as if he was in service until the proceedings are concluded and final order is passed in respect thereof. The concerned officer will not receive any pay and/or allowance after the date of superannuation. He will also not be entitled of the payment of retirement benefits till the proceedings are completed and final order is passed thereon except his own contributions to CPF. 5. In view of the aforesaid Regulation, Shukla ceased to be in service on 31st January, 1999 on attaining his superannuation but the disciplinary proceedings against him continued. Shukla denied the charges ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....med his wife had signed the cheque) but he directed the Bank to 'stop payment' by a communication dated 6th March, 1991. Notwithstanding the 'stop payment' communication, his brother presented the cheque for encashment on 2nd April, 1991 and it was temporarily encashed. 9. We have been informed by learned Counsel for Shukla that on 19th July, 1994 he was promoted to higher category as Manager and on 12th August, 1996 he was permitted to cross the efficiency bar. These events occurred before the charge sheet was issued to Shukla. 10. The learned Single Judge took the view that there was no prohibition in a bank employee having an account in the same bank and that in case a cheque issued by such an employee was dishonoured, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion for this unexplained delay. It appears that some internal discussions were going on within the Bank but that it took the Bank 7 years to make up its mind is totally unreasonable and unacceptable. On this ground itself, the charge sheet against Shukla is liable to be set aside due to the inordinate and unexplained delay in its issuance. 13. What compounds the default on the part of the Bank is that Shukla was placed in a higher category as a Manager on 19th July, 1994 while all these discussions were going on in the Bank. He was also allowed to cross the efficiency bar on 12th August, 1996 again while the discussions were going on. Surely, if the Bank was serious about proceeding against Shukla for misconduct, they would not only have ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bsistence allowance which prevented him from effectively participating in the disciplinary inquiry. On this ground as well, the proceedings against Shukla are vitiated. 16. Finally, we may also draw attention to an unreported decision of this Court in UCO Bank and Ors. v. Prabhakar Sadashiv Karvade [C.A. No. 4725 of 2010 decided on 20th May, 2010]. In this decision, the Court considered the provisions of the Regulations that we are concerned with and held: The sum and substance of these Regulations is that even though a departmental inquiry instituted against an officer employee before his retirement can continue even after his retirement, none of the substantive penalties specified in Regulation 4 of 1979 Regulations, which include dism....