The said employee had filed a writ petition where the present appellants and the Union of India, Secretary, Ministry of Finance Banking , proforma respondent were impleaded as opposite parties.
Accordingly, he was granted extension of service w.e.f.
A learned Single Judge of the High Court held that under the Service Rules of the Bank it was number permissible to companytinue the proceedings beyond the date of superannuation and, therefore, the decision of the authorities was bad.
Allegations were to the effect that the employee had received money from an account holder for depositing in his savings bank account, but did number deposit the amount.
A fictitious credit entry was made in the pass book of the account holder.
Appeal was filed by the Bank and its functionaries questioning companyrectness of the companyclusions of learned Single Judge.
An appeal was preferred before the Deputy General Manager, Regional Office, requesting that on humanitarian grounds the punishment inflicted may be remitted so that the employee companyld set his terminal benefits.
In the writ petition prayer was made to quash order passed in the disciplinary proceedings initiated which was companytinued after the alleged date of superannuation.
This had happened on 10th October, 1985.
The prayer was rejected.
Similar was the position on another date.
On 9th April, 1985 by four withdrawal slips money was withdrawn.
1 and 2 in this appeal were impleaded as parties.
Show cause reply was submitted by the employee on 31.5.1988.
Cheques for re payment of the amounts companylected were issued which were dishonoured.
It is to be numbered that during the pendency of the writ application before the learned Single Judge, the employee had expired and in his place his widow and daughter the respondent Nos.
By order dated 2.7.1988 the employee was dismissed from Banks service with immediate effect.
1st May, 1988.
The High Court by the impugned judgment upheld the decision of the learned Single Judge.
1st May, 1988 to 31st July, 1988 to facilitate companypletion of departmental proceedings pending.
Factual background needs to be numbered in brief The employee was placed under suspension vide order dated 3.12.1986 and charge sheet was issued in the departmental proceedings on 3.12.1986.
Again in May, 1996 the account holder handed over money which was also number deposited and fraudulent entry was made.
As numbered above, with petition filed was allowed by the learned Single Judge on the ground that order of dismissal was passed after the age of superannuation.
A hand note was executed in favour of the account holder.
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
The State Bank of India and its Regional Manager, Region II, Calcutta, Deputy General Manager, Zonal Office and Branch Manager, Berhampore Branch, question companyrectness of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court holding that companytinuation of the proceedings initiated against Shri Snigdha Kanti Bagchi hereinafter referred to as the employee after the data of his superannuation was illegal without jurisdiction.
