The provisions in the Service Rules that Disciplinary proceedings may be
continued after retirement of the officer was kept to take care of the situations
where some fraud or gross misconduct is committed shortly before the
superannuation of the officer. However, in practice this provision is grossly
misused and even abused to stall / stop the normal retirement of the officer by
digging out some act of misconduct committed years before the date of retirement
and charge sheets are issued on the very eve of the actual retirement. Cases are
not lacking where the alleged misconduct was discovered years before the
retirement date but the proceedings like investigation, preliminary explanation
etc proceed at snails pace and actual charge sheet is issued when the officer is on
the eve of his retirement by invoking the provision to keep him in bank’s service
83
for the limited purpose of completing the departmental proceedings.
Resultantly, his retiral benefits are withheld and the officer is made to undergo all
sorts of stigma and social ignominy. Out of sight is out of mind. Once the officer
is not on the rolls, the proceedings progress at even slower pace and the officer
keeps suffering for years on end. Government instructions to put up such cases
at least one year before retirement and these should be subjected to quarterly
review by an authority no less than the CEO himself are not being adhered to.
Recommendation
It should be clearly provided that this particular rule can not be applied for
misconduct which is more than say one year old at the maximum. Further, this
rule 19 (3), 20(3) in some banks should not be invoked in the last quarter unless
some fraud / act of misappropriation has been unearthed. It should be further
provided that if the proceedings are not completed within three, or at the
maximum six months of the date of superannuation, the retrial benefits will be
released. Even when this rule is invoked and officer is retained in service for the
purpose of completion of proceedings, the amount of leave encashment, which is
not a retrial benefit, should not be withheld. Further, such officers are being paid
provisional pension so that the organization is not legally called upon to pay
salary for the period, proceedings remain pending. Provisional commutation
value should also be paid. Similar relief should be provided to officers who are
not pension optees.
(xvi) OTHER ISSUES
(a) Effect of criminal proceedings
Since criminal proceedings takes a long time to conclude and even if decided,
against the officer result in award of a sentence under the law, it should not affect
the promotion and / or retirement of the officer, if it is not related to misconduct
pertaining to official banking transactions.
(b) Provision of additional documents
As in the case of government employees and as per the provisions of the CCA
Rules on which the bank officers disciplinary rules are also based, all the
management documents must be accompanied with the charge sheet and
additional documents should not be allowed to be presented by the prosecution
side unless so agreed by the charged officer since presentation of additional
documents in case of government employees is taken as amendment to the
charge sheet itself. The existing rules about amendment of charge sheets may be
reviewed.
Leave a Reply