UCO BANK AND OTHERSversusM.B. MOTWANI (DEAD) THR. LRS. & OTHERS

                [2023] 16 S.C.R. 525 : 2023 INSC 908



                         CASE DETAILS

                    UCO BANK AND OTHERS
                                  v.
         M.B. MOTWANI (DEAD) THR. LRS. & OTHERS
                   (Civil Appeal No. 8516 of 2011)
                        OCTOBER 12, 2023
          [HIMA KOHLI AND RAJESH BINDAL, JJ.]
                           HEADNOTES
     Issue for consideration: Whether the High Court was justified
in setting aside the order passed by the appellant-Bank imposing
punishment of dismissal upon the respondent no.1-Bank manager.
     Service Law – United Commercial Bank Offi cer’s Service
Regulations, 1979 – Regulation 20(3)(iii) – Termination of service –
Disciplinary proceedings, not pending against delinquent employee,
on the date of his superannuation – Effect – On facts, the Bank
manager-employee attained the age of superannuation on 02.07.1991
and was due to retire on 31.07.1991 – On 17.06.1991 was served
with a memo requiring him to explain the irregularities and lapses
relating to certain accounts during his tenure – Thereafter, on
15.07.1991, the General Manager exercising power u/Regn 12 of the
1976 Regulations, placed him under suspension and the same was
upheld by the Appellate Authority and the High Court – Meanwhile,
on 07.12.1991, the Bank Manager served with the charge sheet and
the departmental enquiry started – On 03.03.1993, the Disciplinary
Authority dismissed the Bank Manager from service under the
1976 Regulations – Appeal there against rejected by the Appellate
Authority – However, the High Court set aside the dismissal order
– Correctness:
     Held: Bank manager-employee attained the age of superannuation
on 02.07.1991 and was due to retire on 31.07.1991, whereas the
chargesheet was issued to him on 07.12.1991 – Departmental proceeding
was not initiated on issuance of a show cause notice but only when the
                                525
526         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2023] 16 S.C.R.


chargesheet was issued – Thus, on the date of his superannuation, no
disciplinary proceedings were pending against him – In view therof, the
punishment order of dismissal from service set aside – Furthermore, since
the employee expired during the pendency of the appeal, the appellant-
Bank to pay the service benefits due to the employee along with interest
@ 7% pa from the date of his retirement till the payment is made, to
his legal heirs within the stipulated period – United Commercial Bank
Officer, Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976. [Para
23, 28]
       LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
     Ramesh Chandra Sharma v. Punjab National Bank [2007] 7 SCR
585:(2007) 8 SCALE 240 – distinguished.
     UCO Bank & Anr. v. Rajender Lal Capoor [2007] 7 SCR 543:
(2007) 6 SCC 694; Canara Bank v. D.R.P. Sundharam (2016) 12 SCC
724; UCO Bank v. Rajinder Lal Capoor [2008] 5 SCR 775: (2008) 5
SCC 257; Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd.
v. Rabindranath Choubey (2020) 18 SCC 71; B.K. Srinivasan v. State of
Karnataka [1987] 1 SCR 1054: (1987) 1 SCC 658; Rajendra Agricultural
University v. Ashok Kumar Prasad [2009] 15 SCR 1168: (2010) 1 SCC
730; United Bank of India Officers Association v. United Bank of India
1987 (1) LLJ 104 – referred to.
       OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED
              ORDER AND APPEARANCES
      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.8516 of 2011.
   From the Judgment and Order dated 30.07.2009 of the High Court of
Bombay in WP No.15 of 1995.
      Appearances:
     Vikramjit Banerjee, ASG, Sudhir Mishra, Rajesh Singh, Advs. for
the Appellants.
     Aman Mohit Hingorani, Himanshu Yadav, Naseem Ahmed, Advs. for
the Respondents.
    UCO BANK AND OTHERS v. M.B. MOTWANI (DEAD) THR. 527
                    LRS. & OTHERS


        JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT

                                     JUDGMENT

      RAJESH BINDAL, J.
     1. The challenge in the present appeal is to the judgment1 of the High
Court2 passed in A Writ Petition3.Vide the aforesaid judgment,the Division
Bench of the High Court had set aside the order dated 03.03.1993,passed
by the appellant-Bank, wherein the punishment of dismissal was imposed
upon the respondent no.1 and the order dated 23.07.1993, by which the
appeal filed by him was dismissed by the Appellate Authority.
      FACTS
      2. Briefly the facts, available on record, are that the respondent
no.1 was appointed as an Apprentice in the appellant-Bank4 in the year
1952. In the year 1974, he was posted as a Branch Manager at Moradabad
Branch. From there, he was transferred to Calcutta Main Branch as an
Assistant Manager. In the year 1976, the respondent no.1 was promoted
and was transferred to Bombay as Senior Management Scale-IV Officer.
Between the year 1988-90, he served as an Assistant General Manager
at Bombay Main Branch. He attained the age of superannuation on
02.07.1991 and was due to retire on 31.07.1991. An intimation notice for
retirement was served upon him on 07.05.1991. Immediately, thereafter
on 17.06.1991, the respondent no.1 was served with a memo requiring
him to explain the irregularities and lapses relating to certain accounts
during his tenure when he was heading the Bombay Main Branch.
Vide letter dated 20.06.1991, he sought time and certain documents to
enable him to reply to the show cause notice. A fresh notice was served
upon him on 06.07.1991, to which the respondent no.1 again sought
time and the documents for filing his reply.On 15.07.1991, the General
Manager (Personnel) exercising power under Regulation 12 of the 1976



1    Dated 30.07.2009.
2    High Court of Bombay
3    Writ Petition No. 15 of 1995.
4    United Commercial Bank.
528             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2023] 16 S.C.R.


Regulations5 placed the respondent no.1 under suspension and ordered
that the respondent no.1 shall not be retired from the service of the Bank,
despite attaining the age of superannuation-under Regulation 20(3)(iii)
of the 1979 Regulations6.
      3. Aggrieved by the order of suspension, the respondent no.1 preferred
an appeal which was dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 07.11.1991.
A chargesheet dated 07.12.1991 was served upon the respondent no.1 on
10.12.1991 and he was called upon to face the departmental enquiry. The
respondent no.1 filed his reply to the chargesheet, denying all the allegations
as baseless. The order of suspension was challenged by the respondent
no.1 by filinga Writ Petition7 before the High Court, which was disposed
of on 10.01.1992, with certain directions regarding the enquiry, while not
interfering with the order of suspension.
      4. On 09.04.1992, the Inquiry Officer submitted his report. On
03.03.1993, the Disciplinary Authority dismissed the respondent no.1 from
the service under Regulations 7(3) read with Regulation 4-D of the 1976
Regulations. The respondent no.1, aggrieved against the order of dismissal,
preferred a statutory appeal, which was dismissed by the Appellate Authority
on 23.07.1993.
     5. The aforesaid order was challenged by the respondent no.1 by filing
a Writ Petition3in the High Court, which was allowed vide impugned order.
Against the aforesaid order, the appellant-Bank is in appeal before this Court.
       ARGUMENTS
      6. Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, learned Additional Solicitor General of India
appearing for the appellant-Bank, submitted that the impugned judgment
of the High Court has been passed on a wrong premise, without properly
appreciating the arguments. The 1979 Regulations clearly permitted action
even against a retired employee. He submitted that Regulation 20 thereof
which was duly approved by the Reserve Bank of India and the Central



5     The United Commercial Bank Officer, Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations,
      1976.
6     The United Commercial Bank Officer’s Service Regulations, 1979.
7     Writ Petition No. 3667 of 1991.
  UCO BANK AND OTHERS v. M.B. MOTWANI (DEAD) THR. 529
         LRS. & OTHERS [RAJESH BINDAL, J.]

Government has to be given its full effect. However, the High Court has
gone wrong in holding that a chargesheet was required to be issued, though
the 1979 Regulations provide that a show cause notice was good enough to
show that proceeding has been initiated against an employee.
     7. With reference to the amendment in Regulation 20 of 1979
Regulations, he referred to a communication dated 01.07.1985 from the
Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic
Affairs (Banking Division) addressed to the Chief Executive Officers of the
Nationalised Banks, wherein a direction was issued to initiate process for
amendment of Regulation 20 of the 1979 Regulations. The draft of the said
amendment, as approved by the Board of Directors in its meeting held on
31.08.1985, was forwarded to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance
and to the Reserve Bank of India for its formal sanction. On 17.12.1985,
the Reserve Bank of India granted approval to the proposed amendment.
Thereafter, the Government of India also granted approval on 30.01.1986.
After the aforesaid approvals were received, the appellant-Bank had put up
the amendment before the Board of Directors for adoption on 12.03.1986,
which was duly approved on 17.04.1986. A circular was issued to all the
branches of the Bank on 28.05.1996, informing them about the amendment
made in the 1979 Regulations.
      8. Referring to the Regulation 20(3)(b) of the 1979 Regulations, the
learned counsel for the appellant-bank argued that this clearly provides
that the disciplinary proceedings against an employee shall be deemed to
be pending on the date of retirement in casea show cause notice has been
issued to him before that. Regulation 20(3)(c) of the 1979 Regulations further
provides that an officer under suspension of a charge of misconduct shall
not be retired or permitted to retire on attaining the age of superannuation.
He shall be retained in the service till the inquiry into the charge levelled
against him is concluded and a final order passed thereon.
     9. Learned counsel for the appellant-Bank further argued that the
High Court had misdirected itself while referring to the 1979 Regulations
as being amended in the year 1993 i.e., after the retirement date of the
respondent no.1. Whereas the fact remains that these were amended in the
year 1986 itself. Though this Court opined in the case of UCO Bank &
530             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2023] 16 S.C.R.


Anr. v. Rajender Lal Capoor (2007) 6 SCC 6948 that, any proceeding
against an employee shall be deemed to be pending only when a chargesheet
is issued, but the judgment was delivered while ignoring true meaning
of the plain language used in Regulation 20 of the 1979 Regulations. He
further submitted that on the same day another judgment was delivered
by the same Benchof this Court in Ramesh Chandra Sharma v. Punjab
National Bank (2007) 8 SCALE 240, wherein this Court opined that, the
Regulation should be given full effect even with reference to the legal fiction
provided therein. Identical Regulations with reference to the case of Punjab
National Bank (supra) were under consideration therein. Subsequently, the
matter was referred to a three-Judge Benchof this Court for consideration
in Canara Bank v. D.R.P. Sundharam, (2016) 12 SCC 724,wherein this
Court upheld the view expressed in UCO Bank v. Rajinder Lal Capoor,
(2008) 5 SCC 2579. However, the fact remains that in that case the issue
was not considered in its entirety with reference to the 1979 Regulations
and its true spirit, especially the deeming provisions. He further submitted
that recently in Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Mahanadi Coalfields
Ltd. v. Rabindranath Choubey, (2020) 18 SCC 71, a three-Judge Bench
of this Court had expressed its reservation with reference to the view
expressed in Rajender Lal Capoor-I (supra) delivered by a Two-Judge
Bench of this Court.
      10. While concluding the argument, the learned counsel for the
appellant-Bank submitted that the impugned judgment of the High Court
goes even beyond the views expressed by this Court in Rajender Lal
Capoor-I (supra). In any case, there being a conflict of opinion among the
two judgments of Three-Judge Benches each i.e., Canara Bank (supra)
and Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. (supra), the matter may be referred to a
larger Bench.
      11. In response, Mr. Aman Hingorani, learned counsel appearing for
the respondent no.1, submitted that the facts of the case in Rajender Lal
Capoor-I (supra)were totally different, as in that case chargesheet had been
issued to the employee while he was in service. Hence, the proceeding could



8     Rajender Lal Capoor - I.
9     Rajender Lal Cooper -II.
  UCO BANK AND OTHERS v. M.B. MOTWANI (DEAD) THR. 531
         LRS. & OTHERS [RAJESH BINDAL, J.]

continue even after his retirement. The judgment of this Court in Mahanadi
Coalfields (supra) is also not relevant as the issue involved therein was
altogether different. There also, the chargesheet was issued to the employee
during the course of his employment, after which the employee was
suspended. The suspension order was revoked, however, the departmental
inquiry remained pending till superannuation. In any case, reference in the
aforesaid judgment was made to Rajender Lal Capoor-I (supra) and not
to the views expressed by a Three-judge Bench of this Court in Canara
Bank (supra), which upheld the views expressed by a Two-Judge Bench in
Rajinder Lal Capoor -II (supra).
     12. He further submitted that the 1979 Regulations do not provide for
any procedure to be followed for inquiry or the punishment which can be
imposed. For this, the disciplinary authority will have to refer to the 1976
Regulations, which provide that after retirement of an employee, the only
punishment which could be awarded is with reference to the retiral benefits
and not termination from service.
       13. It was further submitted by learned counsel for the respondent
no.1 that even if the amendment to Regulation 20 of the 1979 Regulations
as proposed by the Bank had been approved by the Reserve Bank of India
and thereafter by the Government of India and adopted by the appellant-
Bank on 17.04.1986, however, any amendment in the Regulations would
take effect only after its publication in the Official Gazette in terms of the
amendment made in Section 19(1) of the 1970Act.10 Admittedly, the idea
behind the publication in the Official Gazette is to make the affected people
aware about the changes in law. Admittedly, there was no publication in the
Official Gazette and for the first time, the appellant-bank had issued a circular
to all the branches on 28.05.1986, regarding the amendment carried out in
Regulation 20 of the 1979 Regulations. After the amendment in Section
19(1) of 1970 Act, the pre-requisite of the publication through gazette
notification was required to be complied with. On failure of publication in
the Official Gazette, the amended provisions of Regulation 20 could not
be enforced against the respondent no.1. The counsel for the respondent
no.1 referred to the judgment of this Court in B.K. Srinivasan v. State of


10 The Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970.
532          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2023] 16 S.C.R.


Karnataka, (1987) 1 SCC 658 and Rajendra Agricultural University v.
Ashok Kumar Prasad, (2010) 1 SCC 730. He further submitted that even
prior to the judgment of this Court in Rajender Lal Capoor-II (supra), this
Court in United Bank of India Officers Association v. United Bank of
India, 1987 (1) LLJ 104, had struck down the 1979 Regulations.
      14. He further submitted that even the Government of India vide letter
dated 15.12.1988, addressed to all Nationalised Banks, requested that the
Regulation 20 of the 1979 Regulations having been held to be ultra vires
by this Court in United Bank of India Officers Association’s case (supra),
the same should not be invoked by the Banks.
      15. While concluding the argument, counsel for the respondent no.1
submitted that, the respondent no.1 had expired on 30.12.2012. He is now
represented by his legal representatives. No retiral dues were paid to the
employee (i.e., respondent no. 1) concerned. Hence, on account of delay,
direction should be issued to the appellant-Bank for payment thereof, along
with interest.
     16. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
relevant referred record.
      DISCUSSION
      17. Before we proceed to consider the arguments raised by the learned
counsel for the parties, we deem it appropriate to refer to the legal position
with reference to the arguments raised regarding Regulation 20 of the 1979
Regulations.
      18. The undisputed facts on record are that the respondent no.1 while
serving as Assistant General Manager at Bombay Main Branch, had attained
the age of superannuation on 02.07.1991 and was due to retire on 31.07.1991.
An intimation notice for retirement was served upon him on 07.05.1991.
Immediately, thereafter on 17.06.1991, the respondent no. 1 was served a
memo, requiring him to explain the irregularities and lapses related to certain
accounts during his tenure, when he was heading theBombay Main Branch.
The aforesaid notice was served upon the respondent no.1 on 20.06.1991.
He sought time and certain documents to enable him to reply to the show
cause notice. A fresh notice was served upon him on 06.07.1991, to which
the respondent no.1 again sought time and the documents for final reply.
  UCO BANK AND OTHERS v. M.B. MOTWANI (DEAD) THR. 533
         LRS. & OTHERS [RAJESH BINDAL, J.]

On 15.07.1991, the General Manager (Personnel) exercising power under
Regulation 12 of the 1976 Regulations placed the respondent no.1 under
suspension and ordered that he shall not be retired from the service of the
bank, despite attaining the age of superannuation under Regulation 20(3)(iii)
of the 1979 Regulations. The respondent no.1, aggrieved against the order
of suspension, preferred an appeal, which was dismissed by the Appellate
Authority. Thereafter, the chargesheet was served upon the respondent no.1
on 07.12.1991. The respondent no.1 filed his reply to the chargesheet denying
all the allegations being baseless. The order of suspension was challenged
by the respondent no.1 by filing a Writ Petition before the High Court,
which was disposed of on 10.01.1992, with certain directions regarding the
inquiry, while not interfering with the order of suspension. On 03.03.1993.
the Disciplinary Authority dismissed the respondent no.1 from service under
Regulations 7(3) read with 4(d) of the 1976 Regulations. The respondent
no.1, aggrieved against the order of dismissal, preferred a statutory appeal,
which was dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 23.07.1993. The
aforesaid order was challenged by the respondent no.1 by filing a writ petition
in the High Court, which was allowed by the impugned order.
     Legal Position
      19. Vide judgment of this Court in United Bank of India Officers
Association’scase (supra), Regulation 20 of the United Bank of India
Regulations 1979 which was identical, was held to be unconstitutional and
void.
      20. The matter was considered subsequently by this Court in Rajender
Lal Capoor-I (supra). In that case, the employee concerned had attained
the age of superannuation on 30.10.1996. Show cause notice was issued
to him on 24.10.1996. Chargesheet was issued on 13.11.1998. Finally,
after the enquiry, he was removed from service. The statutory appeal filed
against the order of punishment of removal, was dismissed by the Appellate
Authority. In a challenge to the aforesaid order, the High Court opined that
the punishment of removal was disproportionate vis-à-vis the gravity of
charge framed against him. Finally, it was directed that the punishment of
removal be converted into compulsory retirement. The intra-court appeal
against the aforesaid appeal was dismissed by the High Court. The matter
was agitated before this Court.
534           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2023] 16 S.C.R.


      20.1. While interpreting the 1979 Regulations, this Court opined that
the legal fiction created in clause (iii) of Sub-Regulation 20(3) of the 1979
Regulations, must be given full effect,but it is well-settled that the scope and
ambit of the legal fiction should be confined to the object and purport for
which the same has been created. It was opined that the 1979 Regulations
could be invoked only when the disciplinary proceeding had been initiated
prior to the ceasing of the employees service. The delinquent employee
would be deemed to be in service, although he has reached the age of
superannuation, only if a valid departmental proceeding had been initiated.
The departmental proceeding was not initiated merely on issuance of a show
cause notice. It is initiated only when a chargesheet is issued. That is the date
of application of mind on the allegations levelled against an employee by the
competent authority. Pendency of a preliminary disciplinary inquiry by itself
cannot be a ground for invoking Regulation20 of the 1979 Regulations. On
an employee having been allowed to superannuate, only proceeding inter
alia including, withdrawal of his pension or any other retiral dues under
the applicable regulation, could have been initiated. As in that case, the
chargesheet was issued after the employee had already superannuated, the
same along with inquiry report and the order of punishment was set aside.
The order of removal or dismissal from service can be passed only when
an employee is in service. If a person is not in employment, the question
of terminating his service ordinarily would not arise unless there exists a
specific rule in this behalf. In the aforesaid case, even though the employee
was not in appeal before this Court against the order of his compulsory
retirement but still this Court invoking the principles, as contained in Order
XLI Rule 33 CPC, granted relief to the respondent.
      21. The Bank, being aggrieved against the aforesaid judgment of
this Court, filed a review petition, which was decided by this Court in
Rajinder Lal Capoor -II (supra).While harmoniously construing the
1976 and 1979 Regulations, this Court opined that Clause (iii) of Sub-
Regulation 20 (3) of the 1979 Regulations is an independent provision.
It provides for continuation of disciplinary proceeding which must have
been initiated in terms of the 1976 Regulations. The 1979 Regulations will
be applicable only in a case where proceeding has been initiated for the
purpose of taking disciplinary action against a delinquent officer for the
purpose of imposition of punishment on him. The disciplinary proceeding,
  UCO BANK AND OTHERS v. M.B. MOTWANI (DEAD) THR. 535
         LRS. & OTHERS [RAJESH BINDAL, J.]

thus, is initiated only in terms of the 1976 Regulations and not in terms of
the 1979 Regulations. The complete procedure for holding the disciplinary
proceeding is provided only in the 1976 Regulations. The 1979 Regulations
would be attracted independently where no disciplinary proceeding is to
be initiated. However, when read in context of Regulation 20(3), initiation
and pendency of disciplinary proceeding is a must. The 1976 Regulations
provided for the mode and manner in which the disciplinary proceeding is
initiated. It expressly provides for service of chargesheet which is a sine qua
non for disciplinary proceeding. While putting the tools for interpretation
and giving a harmonious construction to the provisions of the 1976 and the
1979 Regulations, this Court opined that if the intention of the Regulation
making authority had been that the legal fiction as created in Clause (ii) of
Sub-Regulation (3) of Regulation 20 of the 1979 Regulations would cover
both clauses (i) and (iii), the same should have been placed only after clause
(iii). In such an event, clause (ii) of Sub-Regulation (3) of Regulation 20
should have been differently worded. With these observations, the review
petition filed by the Bank was dismissed.
      22. In Canara Bank’s case (supra),this Court noticed that the earlier
judgments of this Court in the cases of Rajender Lal Capoor -I &Rajender
Lal Capoor -II (supra) were delivered by the Division Bench of this
Court. When the matter came up for hearing, having a doubt on the view
expressed, reference was made to a larger Bench of this Court vide order
dated 04.08.2010. A Bench consisting of Three Judges of this Court found
that the provisions of the 1976 Regulations with reference to initiation of
the disciplinary proceeding has been correctly appreciated and interpreted,
especially with reference to the departmental proceeding. This Court had
quoted with approval paras 14 to 23 of the aforesaid judgment of this Court
in Rajender Lal Capoor-II (supra)by which the review petition, filed by
the Bank in Rajender Lal Capoor -I (supra), was dismissed. Para 8 thereof
is extracted below:
     “8. On an exhaustive consideration of the manner in which the
     provisions have been analysed and the clear and unambiguous
     language of the same and also having regard to the provisions of the
     1976 Regulations of the Bank with regard to initiation of disciplinary
     proceeding we have no doubt in our mind that the meaning given to
536           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2023] 16 S.C.R.


      the provisions of the Regulations in the said case is correct and does
      not require any reconsideration. From the above it would follow
      that by virtue of the provisions contained in Regulation 20(3)(iii),
      a disciplinary proceeding initiated by means of a charge-sheet prior
      to the retirement of a bank employee would continue even after his
      retirement in view of the deeming provision contained in the said
      Regulation 20(3)(iii) by which the officer is deemed to continue in
      service till completion of the proceedings.”
      23. From the aforesaid referred judgments of this Court especially by a
larger Bench consisting of Three Judges, in our opinion, there is no merit in
the present appeal as the principles laid down therein have been followed by
the High Court. In the case in hand, the deceased employee had attained the
age of superannuation on 31.07.1991, whereas the chargesheet was issued to
him on 07.12.1991. Meaning thereby that on the date of his superannuation,
no disciplinary proceeding was pending against him.
      24. The arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellant-Bank
that the matter needs to be referred to a larger Bench as the legal fiction and
true spirit of the 1976 and the 1979 Regulations have not been considered by
this Court, is merely to be noticed and rejected, as the larger Bench consisting
of Three-Judges in Canara Bank’s case (supra) had already considered the
judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Rajender Lal Capoor -I
and Rajender Lal Capoor -II cases (supra) and had reiterated the same
legal position.
     25. The observation made in para 38 of the Mahanadi Coalfields
Limited (supra), as relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant-
Bank, will also not come to its rescue for the reason that the observation
was made while referring to the judgment of this Court in Rajender Lal
Capoor -I (supra) and not the Rajender Lal Capoor -II (supra)and also
in Canara Bank’s case (supra)where on a reference to a Larger Bench the
law laid down in Rajender Lal Capoor’s (II)case(supra) was reiterated.
      26. The judgment of this Court in Punjab National Bank’s case
(supra), as relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant-Bank, is
also distinguishable on facts as in that case the chargesheet was issued to
the employee concerned before his retirement.
  UCO BANK AND OTHERS v. M.B. MOTWANI (DEAD) THR. 537
         LRS. & OTHERS [RAJESH BINDAL, J.]

      CONCLUSION
     27. For the reasons mentioned above, in our opinion, the appeal filed
by the appellant-Bank is meritless and the same is accordingly dismissed
with costs, quantified at ₹25,000/-.
      28. At the time of hearing, it was pointed out by the learned counsel
for the respondent no.1 that the employee had expired during the pendency
of this appeal on 30.12.2012. It has been noticed by the Division Bench in
the impugned judgment of the High Court that the subsistence allowance
was not paid to the deceased employee. As we have set aside the punishment
order inflicted on the deceased employee, all the service benefits due to him
along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of his retirement till the
payment is made, shall be paid by the appellant-Bank to his legal heirs within
a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.
      29. The appeal is accordingly dismissed


Headnotes prepared by:                                         Appeal dismissed.
Nidhi Jain