MADAN MOHAN DEY Vs. UNITED BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS case demonstrates the grim determination of the head of a nationalised bank to compel an employee who, after 42 years of service, retired without there being any disciplinary proceedings initiated against him before or after his retirement, to face death by starvation with the family by withholding the provident Fund, Gratuity and leave encashment benefits amounting in the aggregate to Rs. 2 lakhs for a paltry sum of Rs. 1,738/- alleged to have been drawn by him unauthorisedly as leave fare concession of his wholly decedent, unmarried and sick sister. The extent of the cruelty and caprice, malafides and malevolence, unkindness and unfairness, arbitrary, unreasonable and irresponsible conduct and behaviour of the Chairman of the Bank would be apparent from the records. The manner in which the Chairman ignored the advices of the senior officers, the vengeance with which he proceeded, the ill-conceived delight he derived from the suffering of a person, who did not have any pensionary benefit and was solely dependent on the P. F. and gratuity and leave encashment benefit for the livelihood of his family and himself.

(2.) THE petitioner was initially appointed as a Clerk on 8/4/1944 in the erstwhile comilla Banking Corporation Ltd. Thereafter he was promoted in the post of Officer Grade iii. In 1976, he was promoted as Officer Grade i and was acting as Branch Manager in the inter Continental Hotel Branch at New Delhi. The said Grade 1 Office was converted into middle Management III and he was promoted to the post of Deputy Chief Officer in Middle management II in the year 1984 and posted at zonal Office, New Delhi. He was transferred to the Regional Office, North India Region, new Delhi as Deputy Regional Manager of the said Bank. He retired from service on 31st december, 1986 as the Deputy Regional manager, North India Region, New Delhi. After the retirement of the petitioner, he was not paid his retirement benefit. Several representations were made but nothing was done. After seven months of his retirement, the petitioner received a communication dated 17/19th august, 1987 issued by the Deputy General manager, Personnel, informing the petitioner that the authorities of the Bank were unable to settle the retirement dues of the petitioner as the petitioner had given an allegedly false declaration about the monthly income of his dependent sister Miss Chhaya Dey knowing fully well that her total income exceeded Rs. 250. 00 per month at the time of obtaining advance against Leave Fare Concession for his sister. It was also stated therein that the payment of the petitioner's retirement dues might be considered only upon his admitting the lapse for the alleged deliberate suppression of facts about his sister's actual monthly income and making good the loss caused to the Bank. The petitioner denied the said charges. Since the petitioner has not been paid his retirement benefits, he could not repay his loan obtained for house building and thus incurring the liability to pay interest against such loan. His representations were not considered at all and ultimately the petitioner moved this Court in november, 1987.

(3.) AFFIDAVITS have been filed. The records have been produced. Elaborate arguments have been made by Mr. P. P. Ginwala, learned advocate appearing for the Bank. But before I advert to the facts, I shall only refer to one of the communications made by the Bank on 17/ 19th August, 1987 which reads as follows: