A. N. GUPTA Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner, Who is a retired employee of the respondent, State Bank of India prays for the issue of a writ to quash depart meal proceedings alleged to have been instituted by the respondent against the petitioner by issue of a charge sheet dated Jan. 4, 1973, a direction to the respondent that the petitioner be allowed to withdraw the entire amount to his credit in the provident fund of the petitioner to which he is entitled under the rules, and a direction to the respondent to pay to the petitioner pension and other retirement benefits admissible under the service rules.

(2.) The petitioner was born on Aug. 14, 1914. He was appointed as a Clerk in the erstwhile Imperial Bank of India on April 3, 1939 and confirmed as such on June 1, 1941. From that date the petitioner started contributing 5 per cent of his salary to the pension fund and 5 per cent of his salary to the provident fund, both maintained under rules framed for the respective purposes under the relevant statute, namely, the Imperial Bank of India Act, 1920.

(3.) The State Bank of India Act, 1955 was enacted in May, 1955 and came into force with effect from July 1, 1955, the State took over the undertaking of the Imperial Bank. By virtue of the provisions of Sec. 7 of the said Act the petitioner was continued as an employee of the State Bank of India. On March 6, 1972, the petitioner was informed by a communication of that date issued by the respondent that he had been granted extension in service upto Aug. 13, 1972, i.e., the date on which he was to attain the age of 58 years, subject to good conduct and satisfactory service. At that time the petitioner was posted with effect from Aug. 1, 1970 as Agent of the respondent's South Patel Nagar Branch. This appointment he continued to hold till March, 1972 when he was transferred as Public Relations Officer in the respondent's Chandni Chowk Branch. Earlier between Feb., 1968 till July 31, 1970 the petitioner was posted as Superintendent, Stationery Department, in the local Head Office of the respondent. It seems there were certain allegations of lapses on the part of the petitioner during the time he was posted as as Superintendent, Stationery Department. Accordingly, on July 19, 1972 the petitioner was placed under suspension pending further investigation into the functioning of the stationery Department during the period when the petitioner was posted there. Before the investigation could ripen into any further proceeding, the petitioner reached the age of 58 years and retired from service of the respondent. Indeed a memorandum dated Aug. 14, 1972 was to the petitioner that as he had attained the age of 53 years, it was no longer necessary for him to attend the office from Aug. 14, 1972. This memorandum was received by the petitioner on Aug. 1, 1972. The petitioner stopped attending office and on Sept. 1, 1972 while acknowledging the memorandum of Aug. 14, 1972 wrote to the Agent of the respondent's Chandni Chowk Branch that a letter written by him to the Secretary and Treasurer, New Delhi local Head Office, which he was enclosing with the said letter may be forwarded for necessary action. In the letter to the Secretary and transfer of the respondent's local Head Office the petitioner wrote that as he had retired from service of the respondent with effect from Aug. 14, 1972, he may be paid his retirement benefits and pension after calculation at an early date. The petitioner had been occupying, while in service, a house leased by the respondent for use by its staff the petitioner was asked to vacate this house by respondent's memorandum, dated Sept. 7, 1972. The petitioner replied by a letter dated Sept. 18, 1972 that on retirement he was entitled to go to his home town in Bihar and the bank was liable to pay his expenses apart from all retirement benefits. Where may be paid to enable him to vacate the route. Regarding payment of the retirement benefits the respondent wrote to the petitioner on Sept. 27, 1972 that the matter was engaging the attention. In this letter it was reaffirmed that the petitioner had relied from bank's service on Aug. 13, 1972 on attaining the age of 58 years. A letter of Oct. 25, 1972 further confirmed this fact. The petitioner kept on requesting the respondent to make an early settlement of his dues but to no avail and several months elapsed. on Jan. 11, 1973 one J. M. Arora called on the petitioner and tried to serve on him a charge sheet for disciplinary proceedings contemplated by the respondent against the petitioner. The petitioner did not accept the charge sheet but instead wrote to the Branch Manager of the respondent's Chandni Chowk branch on Jan. 13, 1973 about the incident. He submitted that no such charge-sheet could be served on him as he was no longer an employee of the respondent and that the attempt to serve the charge-sheet amounted to harassment. He called upon the respondent to pay to him his provident fund and other retirement benefits within 15 days, failing which he would take such action as he may Be advised. Thereafter the petitioner filed the present writ petition.