S NARASIMHA MURTHY Vs. INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has called in question the communication dated 10.12.2009 issued by the respondent - Bank interalia stating that, the Provident Fund of the petitioner has been appropriated as per the instructions from Central Office Personnel Department to the tune of Rs.14,54,602.00.

(2.) CASE of the petitioner is that, he joined the Bank as a Probationary Officer in the year 1976. While he was promoted as Officer of Grade Scale-IV, a disciplinary enquiry was initiated against him, which culminated in passing of an order of punishment of compulsory retirement, as against which, the petitioner filed an Appeal and Review. Both Appeal and Review came to be dismissed. 3 However, on his compulsory retirement, he made a demand for payment of terminal benefit, in response to the same, the Bank replied by Annexure-K interalia stating that, as per the instructions from the Central Office Personnel Department, the terminal benefits such as Provident Fund has been appropriated towards the alleged loss stated to have been caused by the petitioner.

(3.) ON the other hand, learned Counsel for the Bank submitted that, during the enquiry proceedings, it is revealed that this petitioner had caused loss to the Bank and it is in pursuance of the same, he has been punished with compulsory retirement. He also submitted that, when there is a loss caused by the petitioner and the petitioner is also due of certain loan amount, it is not possible for the Bank to recover the same unless it withholds Provident Fund and Gratuity.