Patna High Court
Shashi Bhushan Kumar OjhaversusUttar Bihar Gramin Bank and Ors
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- BIBEK CHAUDHURI
Holding
The Court held that, pursuant to Rule 45 of the Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations, 2010, the bank may continue disciplinary proceedings and impose dismissal even after an employee's superannuation, making the dismissal order valid.
Summary
The petitioner, a former Officer of Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank, was superannuated on 31 January 2016 but faced disciplinary charges that led to a dismissal order dated 20 April 2016, which was affirmed on 5 October 2016. He challenged the authority of the Disciplinary and Appellate Authorities to dismiss him after retirement, invoking Article 226 of the Constitution for a writ of certiorari and mandamus for payment of post-retirement dues. The Court examined Rule 45 of the Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations, 2010, which deems a superannuated employee to remain in service solely for the purpose of concluding disciplinary proceedings and permits the imposition of penalties, including dismissal. The Court held that the bank acted within its statutory powers and that the dismissal order was valid, rendering the petitioner ineligible for any arrears, allowances, or retirement benefits. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed without any order as to costs.
Issues considered
- Whether the Disciplinary Authority can dismiss an employee after his superannuation under the bank's service regulations.
- Whether the order of dismissal post‑retirement is amenable to judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to post‑retirement dues after being dismissed.
Subjects
- disciplinary proceedings
- superannuation
- dismissal
- service regulations
- bank employees
- Article 226
- writ petition
- post‑retirement benefits
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1221 of 2017
======================================================
Shashi Bhushan Kumar Ojha Son of Sri Ram Sanjiwan Ojha, resident of
Mohalla - New Area, Sikandarpur Behind Zarda Factory , P.S. Muzaffarpur
Town , District - Muzaffarpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank, Kalambagh Chowk, Muzaffarpur through its
General Manager.
2. Chairman, Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank, Kalambagh Chowk, Muzaffarpur
3. General Manager, Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank, Kalambagh Chowk,
Muzaffarpur
4. Regional Manager, Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank, Siwan
5. Branch Manager, Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank, Amori Siwan
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Chakrapani, Advocate
Mr. Deepak, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Prabhakar Jha, Advocate
Mr. Amitesh Jha, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI
C.A.V. JUDGMENT
Date : 24-02-2026
In the instant writ petition, the point for
determination is as to whether an employee of Uttar Bihar
Gramin Bank could be dismissed from service after his
retirement on superannuation.
2. The petitioner was an Officer of Uttar Bihar
Gramin Bank, he was superannuated on 31.01.2016 while he
was holding the charge of Officer, Scale-II, Branch Sahwajpur-I
under Muzaffarpur (East), Regional Office.
3. While he was in service, he was served with a
Patna High Court CWJC No.1221 of 2017 dt.24-02-2026
2/6
memorandum of charge for disciplinary proceeding on
09.04.2016. After holding departmental inquiry, the Inquiry
Authority held in guilty holding Charges Nos.1, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 9
fully proved and Charges Nos.2 and 6 partially proved. The
Disciplinary Authority communicated the report of the Inquiry
Authority and directed him vide letter dated 18/19.02.2016
(Annexure-P/4) to submit second show cause. The petitioner
submitted the second show cause it was duly considered by the
Disciplinary Authority and he passed an order of dismissal,
which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for future
employment in terms of Regulation 39(1)(b)(v) of Uttar Bihar
Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations-
2010. The record of the writ petition further shows that the
petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order of dismissal.
The appeal was disposed of by the Appellate Authority vide
order dated 05.10.2016, affirming the order of dismissal passed
by the Disciplinary Authority.
4. The petitioner raising the question of authority of
the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority has
raised the question as to whether the order of dismissal after
superannuation can be passed by the respondents and invoked
the jurisdiction of Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari quashing
Patna High Court CWJC No.1221 of 2017 dt.24-02-2026
3/6
the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority on 20.04.2016
and affirmed by the Appellate Authority on 05.10.2016. The
petitioner has also prayed for issuance of writ in the nature of
mandamus commanding the respondent-Bank to pay all the pre
and post retiral dues to the petitioner with interest on quashing
the order of dismissal.
5. This Court hears the learned Advocate on behalf
of the petitioner and the learned Advocate on behalf of the
respondent Bank.
6. The learned Advocate for the respondent Bank
refers to the relevant Rule under the name and style of Uttar
Bihar Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service
Regulations-2010. Rule 39 empowers the Disciplinary Authority
to pass major penalties in appropriate cases of compulsory
retirement, removal from service which shall not be a
disqualification for future employment. The petitioner was
dismissed from his service, which shall ordinarily be a
disqualification for future employment.
7. The learned Advocate for the Bank next refers to
Rule 45 of 2010 Regulations, which describes continuation of
disciplinary proceeding after retirement. Rule 45 runs thus:-
“Disciplinary proceedings after
retirement.- (1) An officer or employee who is
Patna High Court CWJC No.1221 of 2017 dt.24-02-2026
4/6
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 The 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).”
8. A plain reading of Rule 45 states that for the
purposes of disciplinary proceedings on a charge of misconduct
by an employee who attains the age of superannuation, he shall
Patna High Court CWJC No.1221 of 2017 dt.24-02-2026
5/6
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.
9. Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 45 states that 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.
10. Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 45 creates a bar from
receiving any pay and/or allowances as well as retirement
benefit after the date of superannuation of the charged employee
till the proceeding is completed and final order is passed
thereon, except his own contribution to Contributory Provident
Fund (CPF).
11. Rule-45 of Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank (Officers
and Employees) Service Regulations-2010, thus, clearly
empowers the Bank Authority to continue with the disciplinary
proceeding and passed any penalty even after superannuation of
an employee of the Bank. Therefore, this Court does not find
any illegality or arbitrariness in the impugned orders dated
20.04.2016 and 05.10.2016. When the petitioner is dismissed
from service, he is not entitled to get any arrear pay and
Patna High Court CWJC No.1221 of 2017 dt.24-02-2026
6/6
allowances or retiral benefits.
12. Lastly, it would not be out of place to mention
that the petitioner did not challenge the process of inquiry,
manner of conducting such inquiry, illegality, arbitrariness and
malafide against the order of the Disciplinary Authority and the
Appellate Authority. The writ petition was confined, only
raising the question mentioned in the first paragraph of this
judgment.
13. This Court on due consideration of 2010-
Regulations finds that the respondent Authority is well within its
legal and statutory parameter in passing the impugned orders.
14. Thus, I do no find any merit in the instant writ
petition. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is dismissed on
contest.
15. However, there shall be no order as to cost.
(Bibek Chaudhuri, J)
mdrashid/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE 20.02.2026
Uploading Date 24.02.2026
Transmission Date 24.02.2026
Checking your session…