On the day of his retirement, Bhupinder Singh Passi, the former general manager (GM) of Punjab National Bank, received a chargesheet and his retirement benefits were withheld. He was assigned to the position of Managing Director at Punjab National Bank (International) Limited in London, United Kingdom, in or around September 2011.
In or around May 2015, his deputation came to an end. After that, he went back to India. In December 2016, it was noted that Punjab National Bank (International) Limited has an unusually high amount of non-performing assets. It was observed that they were opened when the petitioner was in office. According to the Staff Accountability Policy, which was published in a circular dated October 29, 2013, certain procedures must be fulfilled before disciplinary action is taken.
Examining employee accountability in those NPA accounts was decided. The five-member committee was established. A report detailing the anomalies and shortcomings in the accounts and the officials accountable for them was filed. There were 31 such examples found.
Based on the findings, the petitioner's explanation was requested in multiple letters dated December 26, 2016, January 7, 2017, and February 3, 2017. Bhupinder Singh Passi responded to them in letters dated February 8 and February 20, 2017 (the affidavit-in-reply claims that the petitioner purposefully postponed responding to those letters due to his impending superannuation date). The Inspection and Audit division received the notice.
Involvement of the Petitioner was found in 17 out of 31 cases. The note was placed before disciplinary authority and decision was taken to initiate the major penalty proceedings after seeking 1st stage advice from the vigilance department.
First stage reference was sent to the Vigilance department on 27th February 2017. However, vigilance advice was not received till 28 th February 2017. As petitioner was about to retire on that date, notice was issued to him along with annexures-I giving the necessary details to show cause why disciplinary action should not be initiated against him in terms of Punjab National Bank Officers Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1977.
Retirement order was passed on 28 th February 2017 and it was made clear that disciplinary proceeding will continue as if he was in service until the proceedings are concluded.
He was granted provisional pension as he has opted to be governed by Punjab National Bank (Employees) Pension Regulation 1995. He was disqualified from getting other retirement benefits.
On 1st March 2017, he was served with charge-sheet as per Regulation 6 of Punjab National Bank Officer Employees’ (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1977.
He was also served with statement of Article of Charge and statement of imputation of lapses.
The All India PNB Officers’ Association vide letter dated 28th September 2017 addressed to the Managing director and protested the action of the Bank to invoke the provisions of Regulation 20 (3) (iii) of PNB (Officers’) Service Regulation 1979.
The Petitioner approached court to quash the order of the Bank.
Punjab National Bank replied in Court that:
Show cause notice cannot be challenged because it does not cause any prejudice to the Petitioner.
Though the Petitioner claims to have unblemished record, there are two penalties of reduction by one stage for three years and giving a note of caution to the Petitioner.
As disputed question of facts are involved, it cannot be enquired in a Writ Petition. Though the Show cause notice and charge-sheet were issued on 28th February 2017 and 1st March 2017 respectively, this petition was filed belatedly in November 2017.
The allegation in the disciplinary enquiry involves misappropriation of money of the public sector bank and hence enquiry is required to be conducted in the interest of the public at large.
The Court said that there is no dispute about the documents which are referred by both the sides. The dispute is whether the provisions of Regulation 20 (3)(iii) of Punjab National Bank (Officers) Service Regulations, 1979 can be invoked after the officer is superannuated.
The aforementioned Regulation, however, could be invoked only when the disciplinary proceedings had clearly been initiated prior to the respondent’s ceasing to be in service.
.jpeg)