LexStreakRead free →
Supreme Court of India· 19 March 2026

Whether post-retirement of the appellant, punishment of reduction of three stages in the scale of pay, as imposed by the respondent, was permissible under the extant Service Regulations, or action under the Pension Regulations was the only way forward?

VIRINDER PAL SINGH v. PUNJAB AND SIND BANK & ORS
2026 INSC 266 · CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3571 OF 2026
Coram: Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha; Manoj Misra
🔖 Save this judgment🔔 Follow Regulation 20(3)(iii) Punjab and…📬 Get today's judgments
View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.
Answer

It was permissible under the Service Regulations. Where the extant service Rules or Regulations permit continuance of disciplinary proceedings initiated before superannuation, those proceedings can be continued and brought to their logical conclusion afterwards; Regulation 20(3)(iii) of the Punjab and Sind Bank Officers' Service Regulations, 1982 so provides. Since the reduction relates back to the date of superannuation and pension is ordinarily computed on the salary last drawn, the punishment is implementable and recourse to the Pension Regulations was not the only way forward.

Headnote

Punjab and Sind Bank Officers' Service Regulations, 1982 — Regulation 20(3)(iii) — Punjab and Sind Bank Employees' Pension Regulations, 1995 — Disciplinary proceedings after superannuation — Reduction in the scale of pay — Implementability of punishment — End-use of loan — Misconduct — Punjab and Sind Bank Officers' Service Regulations, 1982 — Regulation 20(3)(iii) — Proceedings continue after superannuation — Held: Where the extant service Regulations permit continuance of disciplinary proceedings initiated before superannuation, those proceedings can be continued and brought to their logical conclusion thereafter. The Regulation being statutory in nature, the fiction that the officer is deemed to be in service must be given full effect. (¶29, 36) Punjab and Sind Bank Officers' Service Regulations, 1982 — Penalty after superannuation — Punishment must be implementable — Held further: Where the penalty is dismissal there is no technical difficulty, as it results in forfeiture of pension and other retiral dues. But where the punishment results in mere reduction or adjustment of pension, the Court must consider whether it is implementable post-retirement. (¶36) Punjab and Sind Bank Officers' Service Regulations, 1982 — Reduction by three stages in the scale of pay — Pension computed on salary last drawn — Held further: A reduction of the pay scale by three stages on a permanent basis relates back to the date the incumbent superannuated. Since pension is ordinarily computed on the salary last drawn, such a punishment is not difficult to implement. (¶37) Bank officer — Failure to ensure end-use of loan — Financial irregularity; dereliction constitutes misconduct — Held further: A bank officer holds a position of trust as he deals with public funds, and failure to ensure end-use of a loan is a financial irregularity which cannot be questioned merely because no loss is suffered by the Bank. Any dereliction, whether by negligence, casualness or deliberate intention, constitutes misconduct; appeal dismissed. (¶19, 20, 39)

In the Court's own words
Paragraph 36On a survey of the decisions cited and discussed above, in our view, what is settled is that if the extant service Rules/Regulations permit continuance of the disciplinary proceedings, initiated against an officer/ employee before he had attained the age of superannuation, those can be continued and brought to its logical conclusion even after he had attained the age of superannuation. And where, pursuant to such proceedings, the ultimate penalty imposed is of dismissal, there may be no technical difficulty in its implementation as it may result in forfeiture of pension and other retiral dues. Therefore, in such an event, the question of entitlement to pensionary benefits may not arise. However, where the punishment imposed is such which may, instead of forfeiture of pension in its entirety, result in mere reduction or adjustment of pension, or recovery from post retiral dues, the Court may have to consider whether such punishment is implementable or not, post-retirement.
Paragraph 37In the instant case, the punishment awarded is of reducing the pay scale by three stages on permanent basis. Such reduction in the pay scale would relate back to the date the incumbent superannuated from service. Ordinarily, pension is computed based on salary last drawn/payable. Therefore, in our view, it would not be difficult to implement such a punishment as pension can be computed accordingly.
Paragraph 38For the foregoing reasons, in our view, the Division Bench of the High Court was justified in allowing the writ appeal by properly construing Regulation 20(3)(iii) of the Service Regulations.
Acts & Sections
Regulation 20(3)(iii) Punjab and Sind Bank Officers' Service Regulations, 1982Regulation 2 Punjab and Sind Bank Officers' Service Regulations, 1982Punjab and Sind Bank Employees' Pension Regulations, 1995

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of VIRINDER PAL SINGH v. PUNJAB AND SIND BANK & ORS — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment
Does every penalty imposed after superannuation stand on the same footing, or must the Court consider whether it is implementable?Whether there is any perversity or infirmity in the enquiry report and the orders passed by the Disciplinary or Appellate Authority, and can it be raised when it was not pressed before the High Court?Can penal action against a bank officer for failing to ensure end-use of a loan be questioned merely because the Bank suffered no loss?Does negligence or casualness by a bank employee handling depositors' money, without deliberate intention, constitute misconduct?
Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Supreme Court of India. Corrections