CANARA BANK Vs. GULZARI LAL KWATRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present intra-Court appeal impugns the order dated 1st September, 2011 passed in W.P. (C) No. 2438/1996, Gulzari Lal Kwatra v. Union of India & Anr. . The aforesaid writ petition filed by Gulzari Lal Kwatra, the respondent herein, stands allowed with the direction that the respondent, who had suffered punishment of compulsory retirement, would be entitled to pension under the Canara Bank (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995, (Pension Regulations, for short). The order and judgment of the Single Judge follows the decision dated 30th May 1997, of the Karnataka High Court in Writ Appeal No. 8897 of 1996 titled Canara Bank v. B.M. Ramachandra. It has been observed that the said decision was affirmed by the Supreme Court in Bank of India v. Indu Rajagopalan, (2001) 9 SCC 318.

(2.) We would briefly refer to the facts relevant to the present appeal. The respondent was an employee of Laxmi Commercial Bank, and consequent to the amalgamation of the said bank with Canara Bank, was inducted into the service of the latter Bank as an accountant with effect from 24th August, 1985. The appellant-Canara Bank initiated disciplinary action against the respondent on account of unauthorised absence from service and a charge-sheet was issued under the Canara Bank Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976, (1976 Regulations, for short). By order dated 26th August, 1991, the respondent was compulsorily retired from service under Regulation 4(h) of the 1976 Regulations. The appeal and revision filed by the respondent against the order of compulsory retirement were dismissed by the appellate and reviewing authority on 16th June, 1993 and 5th September, 1995, respectively.

(3.) The Pension Regulations were enacted and had come into effect from 29th September, 1995. Clause 33 of the said Regulations pertains to Compulsory Retirement Pension and reads as under:-