ASHWANI KUMAR SHARMA Vs. UCO BANK AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Upon being compulsorily retired, the petitioner has further been visited with a cut in his pension beside forfeiture of his gratuity amount and leave encashment due to him. He is aggrieved against imposing of the cut in his pension and the withholding of gratuity and leave encashment amounts. The petitioner has not challenged the punishment of compulsorily retirement imposed on him. The facts essential to get the hang of the issues agitated in the petition may need a mention in brief.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Cashier-cum-Godown Keeper on 7.5.1969, and continued to work as such till 19.9.1970. He was given a fresh appointment w.e.f. 6.10.1970 and had joined the UCO Bank branch at Shimla in Himachal pradesh. Thereafter, he remained in service till he was compulsorily retired on 31.7.1997. The petitioner thus claims that he had served the respondent-bank for over a period of 28 years. He also pleaded that as per Rules, the benefit of 5 years' service is admissible to him for calculation of pension upon completion of 20 years of service. He thus, claims that he has 33 years of pensionable service to his credit. The order of compulsory retirement had been made against him on the basis of charges proved against the petitioner as alleged in a charge-sheet dated 20.9.1993. As per the charges the petitioner while officiating as Branch Manager, had prepared some debit voutures and thus had cheated the bank. Detailed mention of the allegation is not required because the punishment awarded to the petitioner is not under challenge. He, however, is aggrieved against the subsequent action in imposing the cut in his pension and forfeiture of his gratuity amount and leave encashment payable to him. Suffice it to say that after service of the charge-sheet to the petitioner, enquiry was got conducted and the enquiry report was submitted on 10.9.1996. Thereafter, a copy of the enquiry report was supplied to the petitioner on 11.9.1996, and after obtaining his response, the punishment of compulsory retirement was imposed on him on 23.7.1997. This order has been annexed as Annexure P-3. A perusal of the same would reveal that there was no direction to impose any cut in pension payable to the petitioner or in regard to withholding of his gratuity and leave encashment. In fact, no order in this regard subsequent to the order of punishment of compulsory retirement was even communicated to the petitioner. He got to know of it when he had raised some objection in regard to the fixation of his pension. Through his letter dated 26.6.2001, the petitioner pointed out some discrepancies in the statement of pay while working out details of his pay drawn during the last 10 months of his retirement. Prior to this, the petitioner has also written another letter to the bank on 14.3.1998, asking for payment of leave encashment and settlement of his gratuity. In this letter, he had also brought out to the notice of the respondent bank that he was desperately waiting for the same, as his family was on the verge of starvation for want of funds. This was followed by another letter dated 24.2.1999 to the Chairman and Managing Director of UCO Bank. In this letter, the petitioner had pointed out that he had been waiting for settlement of his gratuity and leave encashment and commencement of his pension but had not received anything. The petitioner again pleaded that it was difficult for him to subsist and was on the verge of starvation for want of funds. Another letter seeking settlement of his gratuity, leave encashment and other benefits due was initiated by the petitioner and this undated letter has been annexed as Annexure P-7. It is in this background that the petitioner received a communication dated 14.7.1999, informing him that the leave encashment is not payable to him, as order of compulsorily retirement made against him amounted to termination of his service by way of punishment. Through this letter only the petitioner was apprised that he was not eligible to receive the gratuity as per the decision of the trustees of the Gratuity Funds. He was also informed that the decision in the matter of his settlement of pension will be communicated to him after receipt of the orders from the competent authority. It is apparent that in this background cut of 1/3rd in pension of the petitioner was imposed. This fact has been pleaded in the petition but no orders have been filed with the writ petition. It appears that no such order was communicated to the petitioner but his pension at 2/3rd of the due pension payable was released to him. So far as, withholding of leave encashment and gratuity is concerned, the same have been done on the basis of a letter dated 14.7.1999, which has been referred to above. In this background, the petitioner filed this writ petition impugning the action of imposing the cut in his pension and withholding his gratuity and leave encashment.

(3.) After notice of motion, written statement was filed. The writ petition was admitted on 1.8.2005, with the direction that the same be fixed for hearing before Single Judge on 11.1.2006. In the reply filed by the bank, the action of imposing the cut in the pension to the extent of 1/3rd and withholding of gratuity and leave encashment have been justified on the ground that the same are in accordance with UCO (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995, (hereinafter referred to as 'Pension Regulations'), Service Regulations 1979 (hereinafter referred to as 'Service Regulations') and under Disciplinary and Appeal Regulations, 1976 (hereinafter referred to 'Disciplinary Regulations'). The assertion of the petitioner that these orders are not legal and rather discriminatory has been denied. Further the averment regarding violation of principle of natural justice and denial of full opportunity of hearing as alleged in the petition have also been denied. The respondent-bank has pleaded that the Enquiry Officer as well as the Disciplinary Authority had given full opportunity to the petitioner to participate in the enquiry as well as before the Disciplinary Authority and hence the grievance of the petitioner that the impugned orders were passed in violation of principle of natural justice is wrong and misconceived. An amended written statement was also filed wherein reference to Regulation No. 33 of Chapter 5 of Pension Regulations was made to justify the imposing of cut in the pension. Similarly, withholding of gratuity was justified by making reference to the provisions of Gratuity Fund Rules and other Regulations contained in the Service Regulations. During the course of hearing, copies of the Regulations relied upon by the bank were also supplied.