Punishment after retirement

Yes. If there is a condition in the service regulations that you will be treated employee of the bank after retirement for disciplinary action, in case any irregularities are detected in a specific period, which may be 3, 2, 1 or more. Ramesh Kumar, Adv, P & H High Court, Chandigarh.

Yes, bank can initiate disciplinary proceedings even after retirement. But, there is a limitation. I my memory serves me right upto 6 years.

Yes, bank can initiate disciplinary proceedings even after retirement. But, there is a limitation. If my memory serves me right upto 6 years.

It depends and may differ from case to case in case of detection of fraud or discovery of instrument suppressed by involved parties.  If there is no financial involvement and if you are clean, just forget and they can not do any thing now.  Worry kills us more than the uncertain event.

From the date of retirement up to four (4) years the bank can take action for irregularities committed by an employee.

The norm for Central Government employees, in terms of Rule 9 of the CCS(Pension) Rules is that  disciplinary action, after retirement, shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than four years before its institution.

Please ascertain whether same or similar norms prevails in respect of your Bank.

 

Disciplinary proceedings cannot continue against an employee after his retirement unless such action is authorised under the rules regulating the particular service, the Supreme Court has held.

The apex court passed the order by setting aside the decision of the Allahabad High Court which validated the continuation of disciplinary proceedings against an employee of an organisation falling under Uttar Pradesh government.

A bench of justices T S Thakur and C Nagappan which dealt with the provision in the Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Employees Service Regulations, 1975, said there is no provision in it for initiation or continuation of disciplinary proceeding after retirement nor there is any provision stating that in case misconduct is established a deduction could be made from his retiral benefits.

"Once the appellant had retired from service on March 31, 2009, there was no authority vested with the respondents for continuing the disciplinary proceeding even for the purpose of imposing any reduction in the retiral benefits payable to the appellant.
 

But I am afraid that it may not be the case with Retired Bank officials, who is entrusted with public money, accountable for frauds resulting in huge financial loss when it is established that official has a direct role in misleading/misrepresenting or falsification.  I am not aware of the present cases against Mr.Chanda Kochhar and likely against Mrs.Arundhati Bhatta acharya and several others in PNB ..Nirvav Modi Scam.  There may not be action against officials by the Bank, and I know many cases where Bank managers after decades of retirement are still attending Criminal courts, on complaints by Bank against their officials and borrowers conspiring by accepting fake title deeds and when there is no such property.

let the querist se the CDA rules of the bank.

Conduct Discipline and Appeal rules (CDA  Rules) which are framed by all PSU including Govt banks.

those who know about disciplinary matters of PSU do understand what CDA Rules mean.

 

by the way Controller of Defence Accounts do not frame any rules.

In the context in which the query has been raised and discussed, CDA Rules can only understood as Conduct Disciplie and Appeal Rules. All the more, the suggestions to any query in this forum is primarily addressed to the queriest and the queriest in the present case has not made any case that he has not understood what the Learned Expert Mr. Sudhir Kumar has posted.

Originally posted by : OM PRAKASH
	According to the Apex Court, bank employees (including the private banks) are public servant for application of anti corruption law. On the other hand, the original querist didn't say that he was involved in acl, but only some lapses he had committed four years before retirement. So, I hope that no action whatsoever was taken against him, then. Not only that he must have taken permission from his employer before his retirement, hence he should not worry about.

 

 

ank employees (including the private banks) are public servant for application of anti corruption law.

True.

The person has not stated about any criminal action undr PC Act which could have been taken even years after retirement.

He is hinting on the feasibilitry of disciplinary action.

Originally posted by : OM PRAKASH
	According to the Apex Court, bank employees (including the private banks) are public servant for application of anti corruption law. On the other hand, the original querist didn't say that he was involved in acl, but only some lapses he had committed four years before retirement. So, I hope that no action whatsoever was taken against him, then. Not only that he must have taken permission from his employer before his retirement, hence he should not worry about.

 

Not only that he must have taken permission from his employer before his retirement

Peremission for what?

No such thing is evident from the origihnal query.

The qeury has been advised to conult CDA Rules of the bank and if any doubt fuirther he is free to come back.