Patna High Court
Rajendra PrasadversusThe Punjab National Bank
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- ANSHUMAN
Holding
The court held that Regulation 48(2) does not prohibit initiating departmental proceedings within four years of the employee's retirement, and therefore the charge memo is valid.
Summary
The petitioner, a retired employee of Punjab National Bank, challenged a charge memo issued on 11‑12‑2025, arguing that under Clause 48(2) of the Bank's Employees’ Pension Regulations 1995 no departmental proceedings can be initiated after retirement. The bank contended that the regulation only bars proceedings after a four‑year lapse from the event, not merely retirement. The court examined Regulation 48(2), which states that disciplinary proceedings not instituted while the employee was in service may be instituted for events occurring within four years, provided the procedure follows that applicable during service. Since the petitioner retired in March 2024 and the charge memo was issued within four years of that date, the court found no statutory bar to the proceedings. Consequently, the petitioner was directed to participate in the departmental proceeding and the writ petition was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether Regulation 48(2) of the PNB Employees’ Pension Regulations 1995 bars the initiation of departmental proceedings against a retired employee.
- Whether the issuance of a charge memo after retirement, but within four years of the retirement date, is permissible.
Subjects
- retirement
- departmental proceedings
- charge memo
- Pension Regulations
- limitation period
- disciplinary action
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4163 of 2026
======================================================
Rajendra Prasad Son of Late Ram Sinhashan Singh, Resident of Barka
Nuwan, Buxar, Bihar Pin code - 812102.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Punjab National Bank through the Chief General Manager, Head Office,
HRD Plot No.4, Sector 10, Dwarka, New Delhi- 110075.
2. The Zonal Manager, Punjab National Bank, Zonal Office, Chanakya Tower,
Patna.
3. The Circle Head, Ara Circle, Punjab National Bank, Ara.
4. The Assistant General Manager, Punjab National Bank, Head Office,
Disciplinary Action Cell (Workmen)
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rohit Mishra, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Suresh Pd Singh No.1, Advocate
Mr. Adtiya Raj, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 24-03-2026
Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and
learned Counsel for the Punjab National Bank.
2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner is a retired employee of Punjab National
Bank, who retired in the month of March, 2024, but after his
retirement a charge memo has been issued on 11.12.2025.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that after retirement
the relation between the employer and the employee has ended
and, therefore, there is no question of initiation of charge after
Patna High Court CWJC No.4163 of 2026 dt.24-03-2026
2/3
retirement. Counsel submits that in the said charge memo the
provision of PNB (Employees’) Pension Regulations 1995 has
been discussed. Counsel submits that he has annexed the
extract of the said provision, i.e., the PNB (Employees’)
Pension Regulations 1995. According to Clause 48(2) no
departmental proceeding could be initiated after retirement. He
also submits that earlier charge memo was issued vide
Annexure-P/1 dated 28.03.2024 by the Circle Head, which was
ended and nothing was found against the present petitioner.
Counsel submits that on the same fact issuance of another
charge memo is bad-in-law.
3. Learned Counsel for the Bank submits that the
said Annexure-P/16 does not make issuance of charge absolute
bar. The question of absolute bar shall arise only after lapse of
four years from the date of event.
4. Upon hearing the parties and perusal of the
said relevant provision, it transpires to this Court that
Regulation 48(2) of the PNB (Employees’) Pension
Regulations 1995 states as follows:
“48(2) No departmental
proceedings, if not instituted while the
employee was in service, shall be instituted
in respect of an event which took place more
Patna High Court CWJC No.4163 of 2026 dt.24-03-2026
3/3
than four years before such institutions.
Provided that the disciplinary
proceedings so instituted shall be in
accordance with the procedure applicable to
disciplinary proceedings in relation to the
employee during the period of his service.”
5. It transpires to this Court that petitioner has
retired in the month of March, 2024 and from his retirement
four year has not lapsed. In the meantime, the charge memo has
been issued. Hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the
said charge memo. Petitioner is directed to participate in the
departmental proceeding. Accordingly, this writ petition is
dismissed.
(Dr. Anshuman, J)
Mkr./-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 26.03.2026
Transmission Date
Checking your session…