RENUKABEN RASHMIKANT PADIA Vs. BANK OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has invoked Articles 14, 16, 21 and 226 of the Constitution for claiming the declaration that she is entitled to get family pension from the respondent bank and for a direction to them to make payment of family pension with effect from 25.10.2000 with interest. The prayers are based upon the facts that her husband had joined service of the respondent bank in October, 1976 and had served till 24.10.2000 when he met with an accident and died in harness. By the letter dated 5.10.2004, the Branch Manager of the respondent was ordered to convey to the petitioner that the entire past service of her late husband was forfeited due to his involvement in fraudulent acts and hence his family was not entitled to family pension.

(2.) By affidavits of the Senior Branch Manager, it is stated that the aforesaid decision dated 5.10.2004 has remained unchallenged and it is an indelible fact that late Shri Padia had committed fraud in 13 Saving Bank accounts by making fictitious credit entries, had enhanced and altered figures of credit slips/vouchers etc. and withdrawn monies immediately from the said accounts which included four accounts of the petitioner and other family members and relatives and thereby he had swindled away sizeable amount of public money of Rs. 11,96,940/-, while he was working with the respondent. It is also averred that the respondent had filed a complaint on 20.1.2001 with City B Police Station. Jamnagar in respect of the aforesaid fraudulent transactions, which complaint was registered under Sections 408 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Registration No. 74/2001; and, on investigation by the police, the Police Inspector had confirmed in his letter dated 29.10.2001 that there was evidence against late Mr. R.R. Padia of having committed crime. With that background of facts, it is averred that when full details and required evidence was found by the respondent bank for initiating disciplinary action against Mr. Padia for criminal breach of trust, fraud, etc. committed by him, he had passed away and, therefore, taking disciplinary action by the respondent was not possible. It is submitted on that basis that the acts/ offences committed by late Mr. Padia attracted the penalty of dismissal which entails forfeiture of entire past service and that in turn entailed disqualification for any pensionary benefits. It is also stated that the case of the petitioner was treated as deemed dismissal from service of the bank in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances and considering the pecuniary loss caused to the bank.

(3.) There is no dispute about the facts that the matter of pension and family pension for the employees of the respondent bank is covered by the statutory provisions enacted in the form of "Bank of Maharashtra (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995, that they have come into force from 29.9.1995 and that they are made under the provisions of the parent Act, namely The Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1970. Therefore, since the matter is covered by statutory provisions, Court has to apply and, in case of necessity, interpret those provisions for deciding upon the issues covered by it. The relevant provisions of the aforesaid regulations ("Rules" for short) may be reproduced hereunder: