S M ADIGA Vs. SYNDICATE BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution praying to direct the respondent to disburse the pensionary benefits of this petition as per Annexure-B, forthwith and etc., These petitions are heard and disposed of together as common issues arise for consideration.

(2.) IN WP 18992/2003 and WP 40590/2003, the facts briefly stated are as follows: These two petitions are by the same petitioner. The petitioner joined the service of the respondent-bank in the year 1968 and was promoted as Chief Manager and thereafter as Assistant General Manager. On 1st January 2002, he was served with a charge sheet under Regulation Nos.43, 45 and 48of the Syndicate Bank (Employees) Pension Regulation, 1995 read with Syndicate Bank Officers Employees (Discipline and Appeal) regulations, 1976. The allegation was that when he was functioning as a Chief Manager/Assistant General Manager, Camac Street Branch, Calcutta during there period between 4.6.1999 to 3.4.2000 he had sanctioned revised working capital limits of SOD facility to Rs.18.50 lakhs and Bank Guaranty Facility to Rs.10 lakh to M/s Cadet Advertising and Marketing Private Limited for taking over the liability from the Canara Bank without ensuring proper security and without obtaining prior permission from the competent authority. It was also alleged that he exceeded his discretionary power for giving advances, without ensuring sufficient care to obtain proper and adequate securities and thus exposed the bank to serious risk of financial loss to the extent of Rs.28.48 lakh and interest thereon, as the bank had no security to fall back upon. Therefore, he was served with a show-cause notice. The petitioners gave his reply denying all the allegation. Not being satisfied with the reply given, disciplinary proceedings were initiated. At this stage, it is relevant to point out that the show-cause notice was issued on 13-07-2000. The reply was given on 26.08.2000. On 21.10.2000, the Bank int5roduced a Voluntary retirement. His request for voluntary retirement was accepted by an order dated 20.02.2001 and he was relieved from his duty on 15.3.2001. As per the terms of the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, he was entitled for sixteen months salary as ex-gratia payment which works out to roughly Rs.14.47 lakh. Out of the same, Rs.7,23,840/- was paid on the date of the retirement. The balance amount was to be paid in installments. But in the meanwhile, disciplinary proceedings were initiated and after enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding that the misconduct alleged against the petitioner was substantially proved. The Disciplinary Authority acting on the said report has passed two orders. The first order is Annexure Y dated 26.12.2002appropriaating Rs.7,57,355/- being the balance 50% of ex-gratia amount towards the financial loss to which the bank is exposed on account of the lapses on the part of the petitioner. The second order is Annexure-CC dated 16.07.2003 by which one-third of the pension payable was permanently withheld. The appeal against these two orders was also rejected by an order dated 28.03.2003. The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid two orders by filing these two writ petitions.

(3.) IN WP 17662/2005 the facts are as follows: The petitioner was employed as a clerk with the respondent M/s Syndicate Bank. He opted for pre-mature retirement under a Voluntary Retirement Scheme of the bank in the year 2000. He was relieved from service in the year 2001, and received a part of the ex-gratia amount due to him. But in the year 2003, he was called upon by the bank to refund the amount received. It was stated that the bank had issued a charge sheet against the petitioner and several other employees in respect of certain irregularities which had come to light. The said employees and the petitioner having admitted their guilt, though the petitioner claimed that a confessional statement had been obtained form him at the enquiry under duress, the pensionary benefits of the petitioner were ordered to be with held. The petitioner having unsuccessfully challenged the order withholding the pensionary benefits due to him, permanently, the petitioner is before this court.