VIRINDER PAL SINGH versus PUNJAB AND SIND BANK & ORS.

Citation: [2026] 4 S.C.R. 249 · Decided: 19-03-2026 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 9 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2026] 4 S.C.R. 249 : 2026 INSC 266
Virinder Pal Singh 
v. 
Punjab and Sind Bank & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 3571 of 2026)
19 March 2026
[Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Manoj Misra,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
(i) 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;  
(ii) Whether there is any perversity/infirmity in the enquiry report 
and the order(s) passed by the Disciplinary/Appellate Authority. 
If yes, whether it could be raised as a ground when it was not 
pressed before the High Court.
Headnotes†
Punjab and Sind Bank Officers’ Service Regulations, 1982 – 
r.20(3)(iii) – Appellant while in service of first respondent-
bank was served a charge sheet on 30.09.2011, inter alia, 
on allegation of irregularities in disbursement of loans – On 
30.09.2011 itself, the appellant superannuated from service – 
However, the disciplinary proceedings continued – By order 
dated 15.06.2013, punishment of reduction by three stages 
in the time scale of pay, on permanent basis, was imposed 
upon the appellant – Appeal against the said order was 
dismissed by the Appellate Authority – Writ petition filed 
by the appellant herein was allowed by the Single Judge of 
the High Court – However, the Division Bench of the High 
Court held that the extant Service Regulations permitted 
continuance of disciplinary proceedings post attainment of the 
age of superannuation, therefore the disciplinary proceedings 
could continue and brought to its logical conclusion as per 
Punjab and Sind Bank Officers’ Service Regulations, 1982 – 
Correctness:
* Author
250
[2026] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Held: In the instant case, as there was no challenge to the indictment 
that huge amount of cash withdrawals was allowed without taking 
supporting bills/receipts, the charge that the appellant had failed to 
ensure end use of the loan stood proved – Appellant while assailing 
the disciplinary action pressed only one ground i.e., that the extant 
Discipline and Appeal Regulations/Service Regulations under 
which the punishment was imposed, applied to serving employees 
only – Besides, a bank officer holds a position of trust as he deals 
with public funds – Sanction of loan beyond one’s power, or not 
ensuring end-use of the loan, amounts to financial irregularity which 
exposes the Bank to financial risk – Therefore, penal action on proof 
of such a charge cannot be questioned merely because no loss is 
suffered by the Bank – This Court finds that there is neither any 
perversity in the finding(s) returned by the Inquiry Officer nor do 
this Court deems it appropriate to permit the appellant to question 
the merit of the finding(s) that Charge No.2 (appellant had failed 
to ensure the end use of the loan) was partly proved, particularly 
when no such plea was pressed before the High Court – In 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 view of this Court, it would not 
be difficult to implement such a punishment as pension can be 
computed accordingly. [Paras 18, 19, 21, 37]
Punjab and Sind Bank Officers’ Service Regulations, 1982 – 
r.20(3)(iii) – Post retirement continuation of the disciplinary 
proceedings:
Held: In view of this Court, 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 
[2026] 4 S.C.R. 
251
Virinder Pal Singh v. Punjab and Sind Bank & Ors.
pension, 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.