Chhattisgarh High Court upholds that continuation of disciplinary proceedings post-retirement, from the stage after receipt of the enquiry report, is permissible where such proceedings were validly initiated and substantially concluded during service—distinguishing Supreme Court precedent regarding fresh initiation post-retirement. The decision affirms existing precedent and serves as binding authority within the State’s jurisdiction on public sector employee service law.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WA/799/2025 of SHRIKRISHNA PRASAD Vs CHHATTISGARH RAJYA GRAMIN BANK HEAD OFFICE |
| CNR | CGHC010450182025 |
| Date of Registration | 31-10-2025 |
| Decision Date | 04-11-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU |
| Concurring or Dissenting Judges | HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE (RAMESH SINHA) – Concurring |
| Court | High Court of Chhattisgarh |
| Bench | Division Bench: Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru |
| Precedent Value | Binding within Chhattisgarh High Court’s jurisdiction; persuasive elsewhere |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms position that continuation (not initiation) of disciplinary proceedings post-retirement is permissible if proceedings were properly commenced during service |
| Type of Law | Service Law / Public Employment / Disciplinary Proceedings |
| Questions of Law | Whether continuation of departmental proceedings post-retirement is permissible where enquiry was initiated and concluded before retirement but final decision was passed later? |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court held that continuation of disciplinary proceedings after an employee’s retirement is legally permissible where the enquiry was initially commenced and concluded during service, and only the final order remained. The distinction was drawn between mere continuation to rectify a procedural defect and fresh initiation post-retirement, which is not permissible absent express authority. The precedent from the Supreme Court in State Bank of India & Ors. v. Navin Kumar Sinha (2024) was distinguished, as that case concerned initiation of proceedings after retirement. The court clarified that the competent authority must pass the punitive order as per the governing regulation; if an order is set aside due to a jurisdictional defect, rectification by the proper authority is lawful. The judgment thus affirms the limited scope for interference in intra-court appeals and upholds liberty for competent authorities to proceed from the interrupted stage without fresh initiation. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | State Bank of India and Others v. Navin Kumar Sinha, Civil Appeal No. 1279 of 2024 (Supreme Court) |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The appellant, a Branch Manager (Officer Grade I), was subjected to departmental proceedings initiated before his retirement. The competent authority to impose penalty was the Chairman under the relevant Service Regulations, but the punishment order was passed by the General Manager, resulting in its invalidation. The learned Single Judge set aside the punishment but allowed the competent authority to proceed from the stage of show cause notice if desired. The appellant opposed further proceedings after retirement. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within Chhattisgarh; authorities and tribunals handling public sector employee service cases in the State |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and service law tribunals; practitioners outside Chhattisgarh seeking to distinguish Supreme Court ratio on post-retirement initiation |
| Follows | State Bank of India and Others v. Navin Kumar Sinha (Civil Appeal No. 1279 of 2024) (Supreme Court)—distinguished on facts |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Clarifies that continuation of disciplinary proceedings post-retirement is lawful if the inquiry was duly initiated and concluded before retirement, and only the final order is pending.
- Distinguishes between impermissible “initiation” of proceedings after retirement versus lawful “continuation” to rectify procedural errors or jurisdictional defects.
- Affirms that failure of the proper authority to pass the punitive order can be rectified by remitting the proceedings to the competent authority, without violating the bar on post-retirement initiation.
- Supreme Court precedent (State Bank of India v. Navin Kumar Sinha) on bar against post-retirement initiation is not a bar where the process was already substantially completed during service.
- Practitioners may use this judgment to support the completion of pending disciplinary matters already validly commenced prior to retirement, even if final orders remain to be passed.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court recognized that the relevant Service Regulations (2010) designate the Chairman as the competent authority for disciplinary action against officers; thus, the order passed by the General Manager was invalid due to lack of jurisdiction.
- The order passed by the learned Single Judge, setting aside the punishment but allowing the competent authority to proceed from the stage of show cause notice post-enquiry report, was found to be a logical consequence of the jurisdictional error.
- Distinguished the present facts from State Bank of India v. Navin Kumar Sinha (2024), explaining that the Supreme Court barred only the initiation of fresh proceedings after retirement absent statutory authority, not the completion of proceedings already validly commenced.
- The court found that since the inquiry report was received, show cause issued, and only the final penalty order was pending at the time of retirement, proceeding to finalization by the competent authority could lawfully occur post-retirement.
- The direction to continue from the appropriate stage does not amount to re-initiation but rather ensures the process conforms to the prescribed legal requirements and principles of natural justice.
- Limited scope of intra-court appeal was emphasized: no interference unless the single judge’s order is shown to be illegal, perverse, or jurisdictionally flawed—which was not found in the present case.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellant):
- Challenged the grant of liberty to continue proceedings post-retirement, asserting it contravenes settled law and service rules.
- Argued that, in absence of express provision in the bank’s service regulations, no disciplinary proceedings (including continuation) can occur after retirement.
- Cited State Bank of India v. Navin Kumar Sinha (2024) as binding authority prohibiting post-retirement enquiry unless expressly provided.
Respondent (Bank):
- Asserted that the continuation post-retirement was permissible since the inquiry process had already concluded before retirement and only the final decision was pending.
- Maintained that the single judge’s order did not permit fresh initiation, but merely lawful completion rectifying earlier procedural/jurisdictional error.
- Distinguishing Supreme Court precedent, argued that the facts here are different because there was no fresh initiation post-retirement and the regulations did not bar continuation of validly started disciplinary proceedings.
Factual Background
The appellant, formerly an Officer Grade I and Branch Manager, was served a charge sheet and departmental proceedings were commenced and concluded, including an enquiry report and issuance of a show cause notice. However, the penalty order was imposed by an incompetent authority (the General Manager, instead of the Chairman as required). The appellant retired on 28.02.2019. After the learned Single Judge set aside the punishment for this jurisdictional defect, liberty was granted to the Bank to proceed from the stage of show cause notice, which the appellant contested in appeal, asserting that such continuation is impermissible after retirement.
Statutory Analysis
- Interpreted “Competent Authority” as defined under Clause 2(g) of the 2010 Service Regulations: Chairman for officers, General Manager for employees.
- Regulation 39(1)(ख) (Kh) of the Surguja Kshetriya Gramin Bank (Officers and Workers) Seva Viniyam, 2010 was cited as the regulatory basis for imposing penalty.
- No express regulation authorizing initiation of fresh disciplinary proceedings post-retirement was identified; however, no bar was found against continuation where proceedings were substantially completed pre-retirement.
- Supreme Court precedent interpreted to distinguish between “initiation” and “continuation” of proceedings post-retirement.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting opinion; both judges concurred and signed the order.
Procedural Innovations
None noted; the procedure followed conformed to established norms—proceedings remitted to proper authority for rectification of a jurisdictional defect.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Existing law on the limitation of post-retirement disciplinary initiation is affirmed, but clarified for cases of pending finalization