The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that a bank employee who was served with a departmental charge-sheet before retirement can still face major disciplinary penalties, including dismissal from service, even after attaining the age of superannuation. The Court dismissed a writ petition filed by former Central M.P. Gramin Bank officer Phool Chand Kosta, holding that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted in accordance with the applicable service regulations and that there was no violation warranting judicial interference.
Background of the Case
Phool Chand Kosta, an officer of Central M.P. Gramin Bank, challenged the disciplinary action taken against him after a Lokayukta trap in 2012 led to criminal proceedings. During the pendency of the criminal case, the bank initiated departmental proceedings alleging misconduct.
The petitioner argued that he was never properly served with the charge-sheet, was denied relevant documents, and was subjected to an ex parte inquiry without being given a fair opportunity to defend himself. He also contended that since he had retired before the disciplinary proceedings concluded, the bank could not legally impose the punishment of dismissal from service.
Court's Observations
Justice Deepak Khot examined the departmental records and found that the charge-sheet had been sent through registered post and carried a postal endorsement stating that the petitioner had refused to accept it. The Court also noted that several letters written by the petitioner showed he was fully aware that the disciplinary proceedings were underway.
The bench observed,
“The petitioner was granted ample opportunity to submit his defence in the departmental enquiry. As the petitioner refused to accept the documents from the Bank, the proceedings culminated into an ex-parte enquiry and ex-parte punishment.”
Rejecting the argument that the departmental inquiry should have been stayed because a criminal case was pending, the Court reiterated that criminal proceedings and disciplinary proceedings operate in different fields. It referred to Supreme Court precedent holding that departmental proceedings are decided on the principle of "preponderance of probabilities," unlike criminal trials, which require proof beyond reasonable doubt.
The Court also interpreted Regulations 39 and 45 of the Madhya Pradesh Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations, 2010. It held that where disciplinary proceedings are initiated before retirement, the employee is deemed to continue in service for the limited purpose of concluding the inquiry and imposing any penalty prescribed under the regulations, including dismissal from service.
Addressing the Supreme Court judgments cited by the petitioner, the High Court held that the earlier larger Bench ruling in State Bank of India v. Ram Lal Bhaskar governed the issue because, in the present case, the charge-sheet had been issued before retirement.
Decision
Finding no procedural illegality or breach of natural justice, the High Court declined to interfere with the disciplinary action under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The bench observed,
“It is not a case where the petitioner was not granted an opportunity; rather, it is a case where the petitioner attempted to bypass the departmental enquiry.”
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that it was devoid of merit.
Case Details
Case Title: Phool Chand Kosta v. Central M.P. Gramin Bank and Others
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 3601 of 2016
Judge: Justice Deepak Khot
Decision Date: 27 July 2026
