GEORGE GEEVARGHESE Vs. BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who was working as Chief Manager in the 1st respondent bank submitted an application for voluntary retirement on medical grounds on 01.01.2014. He attained the age of superannuation on 30.9.2015. However, on the ground that a disciplinary proceedings had been initiated against the petitioner, the application for VRS submitted by the petitioner was not acted upon and Exhibit P4 memo was issued requiring the petitioner to show cause why action has not been taken against him for his unauthorised absence. Thereafter on 24.3.2015, the memo of charges was issued to the petitioner. It is stated that ultimately Exhibit P15 order was passed on 24.9.2015 which reads as follows:-

(2.) By Exhibit P16 proceedings dated 6.11.2015, the petitioner sought release of gratuity and pension to the petitioner, since the disciplinary proceedings had not been finalised. No action was taken thereon and even in spite of the issuance of lawyer's notices. Ultimately Exhibit P23 penalty order has been issued, imposing the major penalty of dismissal on the petitioner in terms of Regulation 4(j) of the Bank of India Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976. It is stated in Exhibit P23 that the order of dismissal shall be effective from 30.09.2015 which is the date of superannuation of the petitioner. By Exhibit P24 proceedings dated 17.3.2017, the petitioner was further informed that he would be entitled to his own contribution to the Provident Fund, compassionate allowance in terms of Regulation 31 of Pension Regulations, 1995 and to gratuity under Gratuity Act or BOI Gratuity Fund Rules 1975 whichever is higher. The petitioner was required to submit the forms, duly completed. It is submitted that though the petitioner had submitted the forms as required, the petitioner is denied pension on the ground that he has suffered the penalty of dismissal. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that since the dismissal was with effect from the date of superannuation, the petitioner who had been permitted to superannuate from service without any embargo would be entitled to payment of retirement benefits in accordance with law. Relying on the decisions of the Apex Court in Jaswant Singh Gill v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and others [(2007) 1 SCC 663 it is contended that forfeiture of gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act cannot be imposed after the employee attains the age of superannuation. Reliance is also placed on a decision of the Apex Court in Union of India v. Ajay Babu [2018 (3) KLT 3058 (SC)] to contend that gratuity cannot be forfeited even on the grounds referable to sub-section (6) of Section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, unless there is a finding of moral turpitude in a duly constituted criminal proceedings. It is further contended that in the absence of Rule permitting the continuance of disciplinary action after retirement, the entire procedure for continuing and permitting the disciplinary action against the petitioner after retirement is non est in law and the petitioner is entitled to his entire retirement benefits, taking into account that he retired on superannuation on 30.09.2015.

(3.) A detailed counter affidavit has been placed on record by the respondents. It is stated that the Bank of India (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995 and the Bank of India Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 govern the issue. It is stated that the petitioner's request for VRS was rejected and memo of charges were issued to the petitioner and disciplinary enquiry was conducted. It is stated that by Exhibit R4(b) proceedings, the petitioner was inflicted with the punishment of reduction to a lower grade from Scale IV to Scale III on 3.8.2016. Thereafter, by Exhibit R4(d) he was inflicted with further punishment of reduction from Scale III to Scale II. It is stated that further memo of charges has been issued against the petitioner by Exhibits R4(e) and R4(f) but the proceedings pursuant to that had not been finalised. It is stated that the petitioner continues to be in service for the purpose of the disciplinary proceedings and as such, the action taken by the respondents in inflicting punishment on the petitioner was fully justified.