its rights to issue a charge-sheet to the appellant on
02.03.2001 because firstly, on 02.03.2001, the
appellant was in the employment of the Bank and,
therefore, he could be subjected to face disciplinary
proceedings as per the Rules. Secondly, since the
memo was served on the appellant prior to
introduction of the Scheme, the disciplinary
proceedings were rightly initiated by serving a
charge-sheet on the appellant after coming into force
of the Scheme on 01.11.2000. Thirdly, in terms of the
Scheme, the appellant's application could be
considered only after conclusion of disciplinary
proceedings and, therefore, the Bank was right in
considering the application and eventually accepting it
on 19.06.2001. Fourthly, the relationship of employee
and employer between the appellant and the Bank
continued till 19.06.2001 and, therefore, the Bank was
within its rights to take any action under the service
rules against the appellant up to 19.06.2001. It is not
in dispute that the Bank took all the disciplinary
actions prior to 19.06.2001 and then accepted the
application for voluntary retirement on 19.06.2001.
Such action, in our view, was just, legal and proper.
46) In the light of foregoing reasons, we cannot
accept the submission of learned counsel for the
appellant when he contended that the appellant stood
deemed retired on 31.12.2000 because no order was
passed or/and communicated to him by the Bank on
or before 31.12.2000 on his application for voluntary
retirement and, therefore, the Bank had no right to
initiate any disciplinary proceeding and pass the
punishment order against the appellant after
31.12.2000. This submission is devoid of any merit
and is accordingly rejected.
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No.5038 OF 2009
Surjeet Singh Bhamra Vs Bank of India & Ors.
Citation:2016(3) ALLMR 403 SC
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
