JUDGMENT : K.R. Shriram, J. 1. By an order dated 8th July 2013, the parties were put to notice that the petition may be disposed of finally at the admission stage itself. Hence rule. Respondents waive service. By consent of the parties, rule made returnable forthwith and taken up for final hearing. 2. The petitioner is 62 years old and retired from the 1st respondent-Bank on 30th April 2011. Two days before her retirement an order was issued by the respondents informing her that the disciplinary proceedings which had been pending against her for over 14 years, will continue even after retirement from service because of which her retirement benefits have been stopped. The background of this ‘disciplinary proceedings’ has to be looked into to decide this petition. 3. On or about 22nd March 1974, the petitioner joined the service of the first respondent-Bank as a Clerk. On or about 5th September 1983 the petitioner was promoted as an officer in JMG-Scale-I and on 1st January 2004 was promoted to JMG Scale-II officer. In the meanwhile, sometime in 1995, the petitioner was transferred as officer to the Andheri (West) branch of the respondent No.1. During this tenure at the Andheri (West) branch the petitioner was required to hold temporary charge of the branch when the Branch Manager was out of the branch temporarily. In the course of holding charge, the petitioner was required to pass cheques issued by customers after verification of the necessary details. During the petitioner's tenure as an officer in JMG, Scale-I in the Andheri (West) branch, a current account was opened in the name of one “Pratibha Pratishthan”. This account was opened on or about 28th September 1995 and the permission to open the account was granted by the then Branch Manager one H.C.Srivastava. As an officer, the petitioner was not concerned with the opening of account as the same was not within the purview of her duty. It was the sole prerogative of the Branch manager. The petitioner was also not aware of any alleged irregularity in the opening of the account in the name of “Pratibha Pratishthan”. On or about November 1995, when the Branch Manager was not available in the branch and the petitioner was holding charge, two high value cheques of the said Pratibha Pratishthan were presented. The petitioner was also not aware of any alleged irregularity in the opening of the account in the name of “Pratibha Pratishthan”. On or about November 1995, when the Branch Manager was not available in the branch and the petitioner was holding charge, two high value cheques of the said Pratibha Pratishthan were presented. The petitioner after verifying the signatures on the two cheques presented with the signature card, passed the said cheques in the usual course of business. 4. In 1997, the petitioner was transferred to the Regional Office of respondent No.1 Bank as an officer. The petitioner received a show cause notice dated 5th March 1997 issued by respondent No.3 in which it was alleged that while she was posted as an officer at Andheri (West) branch of respondent No.1-Bank, she passed two cheques of very high value in account of Pratibha Pratishthan and she had ignored certain irregularities that existed in the opening of the said account. It was also alleged that the account was irregularly/unauthorizedly opened by the said Srivastava, the then Branch Manager for opening the Trust Account and despite that the petitioner had countersigned the cheques that were presented for payment and that amounted to commission/omission unbecoming of an Officer. The petitioner was called upon to respond to the charges leveled against her. 5. It must be noted that the event relates to the year 1995. The petitioner replied to the show-cause notice in which she explained that the admitted position was that the account was irregularly opened by the said H.S.Srivastava, the then Manager and the said petitioner had nothing to do with the opening of an account and she was not even aware of any such irregularities and there was no reason for the petitioner to even believe that there would be such irregularities. As regards the countersigning on the cheques, the petitioner clarified that the signatures on the said cheques tallied with the signature of the authorized signatory in the signature card, account opening form and the resolution and hence she countersigned the cheques which were passed by the then Branch Manager, H.S. Srivastava. She found that the instrument presented was in order and it was the Manager's absolute discretion to dispose the fund or not. Nothing happened thereafter on the show-cause notice and the petitioner was even promoted, as mentioned earlier, to Scale-II in January 2004. She found that the instrument presented was in order and it was the Manager's absolute discretion to dispose the fund or not. Nothing happened thereafter on the show-cause notice and the petitioner was even promoted, as mentioned earlier, to Scale-II in January 2004. The petitioner after submitting her reply continued to work in the normal course and till the year 2011. 6. As the petitioner was due to retire on 30th April 2011, by a letter dated 30th September 2009, the petitioner informed the respondents that as over 12 years have passed since the show-cause notice was issued in March 1997 to which she had replied in April 1997, she would presume that her explanation was accepted and the matter was closed. She also mentioned that the presumption would be correct because the petitioner was also given a promotion with effect from 1st January 2004. The petitioner also requested the bank to confirm the same as she was due to retire within the next eighteen months. There was no response from the bank. 7. In the meanwhile, the petitioner appeared for a written test and was also interviewed for further promotion in the year 2009. Though the petitioner claimed to have done fairly well in the written test and also at the interview, the petitioner did not get the promotion. When the petitioner was once again bypassed during the next promotional test, the petitioner once again made a representation to the respondents by a letter dated 17th June 2010. That was followed by one more representation from the petitioner in which she informed the respondents that she was wondering why her further promotions were not happening and enquired if it was because of the show-cause notice which was sent fourteen years ago or for any other reason. She also brought to the notice of the respondents that it was 14 years since a show-cause notice was issued and reply was sent and no further orders have been passed which would mean that the petitioner was exonerated. As the respondents continued to not give any response, the petitioner once again sent a reminder by a letter dated 18th November 2010 informing the respondents that as her date of retirement was fast approaching and only five months away she was under severe mental stress and agony in view of not receiving any reply from the respondents. As the respondents continued to not give any response, the petitioner once again sent a reminder by a letter dated 18th November 2010 informing the respondents that as her date of retirement was fast approaching and only five months away she was under severe mental stress and agony in view of not receiving any reply from the respondents. The petitioner kept requesting the matter be closed before her date of retirement. The petitioner did not receive any reply. 8. However, just two days before her retirement, the petitioner was issued the impugned order dated 28th April 2011. The petitioner replied to the impugned order by her letter dated 5th June 2011 in which she made it very clear that after 14 years and despite being given promotions, she was being harassed. Issuing the letter one day before her retirement, as per the Bank’s rules, itself was illegal and against the principles of natural justice. The petitioner also relied on the ground rules in the Allahabad Bank (Officers’) Service Regulations, 1979, which provides that after preparing a list of officers retiring in the next two years, the disciplinary / competent authority should get the following scrutiny done in the case of each officer: “• Reports from the vigilance department should be obtained to verify whether any enquiry/investigation is pending against the Officer which is likely to result in disciplinary action being taken against the Officer. • Inspection reports pertaining to the retiring Officer's work should be carefully examined to see if the Officer has committed grave irregularities which may lead to criminal/departmental action against him, especially if the Officer is working in a branch or dealing with operational matters. • Check whether any other serious complaint is pending. It should be ensured that all cases of irregularities, lapses etc. alleged to have been committed by the Officer are looked into one year before the retirement of the Officer. Thereafter, it should be ensured that disciplinary proceedings, if any are initiated and completed well before the date of superannuation. In cases where departmental proceedings are already pending, time bound program should be drawn up to ensure that the proceedings are completed will before the date of superannuation. • Three months before an Officer is due for retirement the competent authority should once again check up with the vigilance department and obtain a fresh clearance from them. In cases where departmental proceedings are already pending, time bound program should be drawn up to ensure that the proceedings are completed will before the date of superannuation. • Three months before an Officer is due for retirement the competent authority should once again check up with the vigilance department and obtain a fresh clearance from them. At this stage, if any fresh case is brought to the notice of the competent authority, he should immediately submit a report to the Chief Executive of the Bank giving the details of the misconduct/irregularities that the Officer is reported to have committed and also whether in his view departmental proceedings should be initiated. The Chief Executive should take a view regarding continuation of disciplinary proceedings beyond the date of superannuation as if the officer were in service, depending upon the gravity of the irregularities committed and sensitiveness of the case. If the Chief Executive is of the view that action should be taken against the Officer even if it results in continuation of disciplinary proceedings beyond the date of superannuation, the officer should be immediately advised by a proper order and the disciplinary authority should be Ordered immediately to frame charges against him and prepare a time bound program for completion of disciplinary proceedings within next six months. In the case of Officer against whom disciplinary proceedings have already been initiated, the disciplinary authority should examine the case three months before the Officer is due for retirement and submit a note to the Chief Executive indicating whether the inquiry will be completed before the date of superannuation. In case proceedings are like to continue beyond the normal date of superannuation, the Officer should be informed by a proper Order about the continuation of the enquiry proceedings, even though he would cease to be in service. The cases of such offices against whom disciplinary proceedings will continue beyond superannuation should be put up to the Board of Directors for information/confirmation. …...............” It is rather obvious that the respondents have not complied with these regulations. 9. The petitioner continued to make representations to the respondents to release her retirement benefits, in vain. The cases of such offices against whom disciplinary proceedings will continue beyond superannuation should be put up to the Board of Directors for information/confirmation. …...............” It is rather obvious that the respondents have not complied with these regulations. 9. The petitioner continued to make representations to the respondents to release her retirement benefits, in vain. The petitioner also made an application under RTI Act for the details regarding the disciplinary proceedings, but the same was refused on the grounds that the same related to disciplinary proceedings against her and hence she will not be provided the information sought. 10. Apart from the facts as mentioned above the petitioner has also relied on the circular dated 15th may 2009 issued by the Personal Administration Department, Disciplinary Cell, Kolkata of the first respondent Bank, in which a time limit for departmental enquiry has been given as under: CVC guidelines on time limit for departmental enquiry: The departmental enquiry is to be conducted within the time frame as per CVC guidelines. Often, enquiries are adjourned for one reason or the other thereby exceeding the time schedule prescribed. For the information of all filed functionaries the time norms prescribed by CVC are given hereunder: 1) Vigilance Cases Within 6 months from the date of institution of enquiry 2) Vigilance 'F' Cases (Frauds involving Rs.1 crore and above) Within 4 months from the date of issuance of Charge Sheet or 2 months from the date of institution of enquiry 3) Non-vigilance Within 3 months from the date of institution of enquiry. The D.As. may also keep in mind the paragraph on Time limit for initiation of Disc. Proceedings as per the Special Chapter on Vigilance Management in Public Sector Banks which states as under : “Every Bank has evolved a system of Credit audit / inspection for non-borrowal / borrowal accounts under which they are subject to close scrutiny. This audit / inspection would scrutinize pre-sanction appraisal, documentation and disbursement of loans / advances and post sanction follow up. If any irregularity is missed out by auditors / inspectors in the first audit / inspection, it is reasonable to expect that the remaining undetected irregularities will be detected in the second audit / inspection and necessary disciplinary proceeding initiated against the concerned officials in the follow up action. Normally, the second audit / inspection would be completed within 3-4 years. Normally, the second audit / inspection would be completed within 3-4 years. The Commission has accordingly approved the proposal that no disciplinary proceeding will ordinarily lie against any official for any lapse not detected within two successive internal regular audits / inspections of the same account or 4 years from the date of the event, whichever is later. In case any irregularity is detected subsequent to the second audit / inspection, the auditors / inspectors concerned will be held accountable and be liable for disciplinary proceedings. This time limit will not apply to cases of i) frauds, ii) other criminal offences or iii) cases where malafides are inferable.” All the concerned authorities at the field level are advised to follow the above guidelines and dispose of the cases strictly in terms of the clarification(s) given. Further, the appeals, that are pending at various levels should also be disposed off within the shortest possible time to mitigate the period of uncertainty to the officer/employee.”[emphasis supplied] 11. It is necessary to note an averment in the petition that the said Srivastava, who was working as a Branch Manager and was responsible for opening the Trust account of the Pratibha Pratishthan, who is now deceased, got all the retirement dues when he superannuated. We fail to understand why the petitioner then is being victimized. 12. The Bank in response has not given any satisfactory explanation as to why the enquiry was not concluded for over 14 years and the reason for its failure to follow its own and CVC guidelines on conduct of disciplinary proceedings. 13. The alleged irregularities were the subject matter of a show-cause notice that was issued in March 1997 for which reply was also given by the petitioner in April 1997. It is not the case of the respondents that they were not aware of the said irregularities or that they came to know about it only just a few days before the petitioner's impending retirement. In fact, the petitioner had on her own initiative, in view of her impending retirement, requested the respondents to confirm that the matter was closed. The respondents for some inexplicable reason failed and neglected to respond. In fact, the petitioner had on her own initiative, in view of her impending retirement, requested the respondents to confirm that the matter was closed. The respondents for some inexplicable reason failed and neglected to respond. It would be unreasonable, unconscionable and unfair on the part of the respondents to have kept quiet for over 14 years and just two days before the petitioner’s retirement and without any satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay, ordered withholding the petitioner's retirement benefits. The respondents have not even given any explanation to the petitioner for its apathy. 14. We are of the opinion that it is most unreasonable, unconscionable and unfair on the part of the respondents to have issued the impugned order after a period of over 14 years. The respondents have also failed and neglected to follow the ground rules provided in Allahabad Bank (Officers’) Service Regulations, 1979. The said rues expressly provide that it should be ensured that disciplinary proceedings, if any are initiated and completed well before the date of superannuation and in cases where departmental proceedings are already pending, time bound program should be drawn up to ensure that the proceedings are completed well before the date of superannuation. The CVC guidelines on time limit for departmental enquiry also provides for the time frame within which the enquiry has to conclude. It also provides that the enquiry should also be disposed off within the shortest possible time to mitigate the period of uncertainty to the officer/employee. The respondents have grossly failed in complying with these requirements more so when the main person, the late Srivastava got all his retirement benefits when he superannuated. It is unreasonable to think that the respondents can keep disciplinary proceedings open for more than 14 years with no end in sight. There is no satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay. On the contrary the respondents are deemed to have accepted the explanation of the petitioner made in the year 1997 in reply to the show cause notice and exonerated the petitioner. Allowing the respondents to continue to withhold the retirement benefits of the petitioner, more so, when the main person who had opened the bank account of Pratibha Pratishthan got all his retirement benefits is grossly unfair. 15. We do not suggest that the mere non compliance with the guidelines internal and of the CVC vitiates the proceedings in as an absolute rule. 15. We do not suggest that the mere non compliance with the guidelines internal and of the CVC vitiates the proceedings in as an absolute rule. In the facts of this case, however, even independent of these rules/guidelines, we would have come to the same conclusion. This is not a case of mere delay. In this case, the delay has, in fact, caused the petitioner enormous prejudice. For instance, if the proceedings had been conducted within a reasonable time, the petitioner could have summoned her superior the said Srivastava whose evidence would have been invaluable. During the course of these 14 years, the said Srivastava died. The delay has, therefore, deprived the petitioner of leading important evidence. This in turn could well have deprived the petitioner of a chain of other evidence depending upon the said Srivastava's deposition. 16. Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that it will be unfair and unconscionable to permit the departmental proceedings to be kept open at this stage. The Writ Petition is, therefore, disposed of by directing the respondents to forthwith close the disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner and release all the retirement benefits to the petitioner within eight weeks of receiving a copy of this order. 17. There shall be no order as to costs.