Introduction:
The Madhya Pradesh High Court, in Phool Chand Kosta v. Central MP Gramin Bank, 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 308, has held that an employee can be dismissed from service even after attaining the age of superannuation if the departmental enquiry was initiated before retirement. Justice Deepak Khot ruled that under Regulations 35, 39 and 45 of the MP Gramin Bank Regulation, 2010, an employee against whom disciplinary proceedings are commenced before retirement is deemed to continue in service for the limited purpose of concluding the enquiry and imposing an appropriate penalty.
The petitioner, a bank employee, challenged the disciplinary authority’s order dismissing him from service after his retirement. The departmental proceedings were initiated following a Lokayukta trap case in which criminal proceedings were also pending. The petitioner alleged that the charge-sheet was never properly served, relevant documents were withheld, and the enquiry was conducted ex parte without granting him a reasonable opportunity to defend himself. He also argued that the disciplinary proceedings should have been stayed until the conclusion of the criminal trial.
After the disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of dismissal, the petitioner’s departmental appeal was rejected through a brief order. Aggrieved, he approached the High Court seeking quashing of the disciplinary as well as appellate orders.
Arguments of the Parties:
The petitioner argued that the entire disciplinary process violated the principles of natural justice. He contended that he was never effectively served with the charge-sheet and was denied access to important documents necessary for defending himself. According to him, the charges were vague and unsupported by material evidence. He also relied on correspondence from the Lokayukta Organisation, which, according to him, indicated that no irregularity had been committed on his part.
The petitioner further submitted that since the criminal prosecution and departmental enquiry arose from the same set of facts, the disciplinary proceedings ought to have been kept in abeyance until the criminal case concluded. He also contended that despite his requests for adjournment on medical grounds, the Enquiry Officer proceeded ex parte and ultimately imposed the extreme penalty of dismissal after he had already retired from service.
The respondent Bank opposed the petition and submitted that the petitioner was repeatedly served with the charge-sheet and notices through registered post, but deliberately refused to accept them. The Bank argued that several communications clearly established the petitioner’s knowledge of the disciplinary proceedings. Despite having sufficient opportunity to participate, he intentionally avoided the enquiry while actively pursuing his defence in the pending criminal case. The Bank further contended that Regulation 45 expressly permits continuation of disciplinary proceedings after retirement where the charge-sheet has been issued before superannuation.
Court’s Judgment:
The High Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld both the disciplinary and appellate orders. The Court found that the records contained postal endorsements showing that the petitioner had refused to accept the charge-sheet. It also noted that subsequent correspondence sent by the petitioner demonstrated that he was fully aware of the pending departmental enquiry. His wife’s letter informing the Bank about his accident and acknowledging receipt of official communications further established that the family had knowledge of the proceedings.
The Court observed that although the petitioner repeatedly sought documents from the Bank for use in the criminal trial, he consciously chose not to participate in the departmental enquiry. His conduct showed a deliberate attempt to avoid the disciplinary proceedings rather than a denial of opportunity. Consequently, the Enquiry Officer was justified in proceeding ex parte after granting sufficient opportunities.
On the legal issue regarding retirement, the Court interpreted Regulations 35, 39 and 45 of the MP Gramin Bank Regulation, 2010 together. It held that where a charge-sheet is issued before an employee’s retirement, the employee is deemed to continue in service solely for the purpose of completing the disciplinary proceedings. Therefore, all penalties prescribed under Regulation 39, including dismissal from service, remain available even after superannuation.
The Court rejected the petitioner’s contention that retirement automatically deprived the disciplinary authority of the power to impose dismissal. It held that the statutory regulations clearly authorize continuation of disciplinary proceedings beyond retirement and preserve the employer’s power to impose any punishment permissible under the regulations.
Finding no violation of natural justice and no procedural illegality in the enquiry, the High Court concluded that the petitioner had been granted adequate opportunity to defend himself but had consciously failed to avail it. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed, reaffirming that disciplinary proceedings initiated before retirement can lawfully culminate in dismissal from service even after an employee has superannuated.