DENA BANK Vs. R.G.PAREEK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 'The respondent was employed with the appellant bank and retired on 30.11.2002 on attaining the age of superannuation. He was a member of the Provident Fund Scheme (CPF) of the Bank and had contributed Rs. 5,76,741.19. Under the rules, the bank was required to contribute the same amount under the scheme. However, the appellant only released the amount contributed by the respondent and withheld the remaining 50 per cent balance on the ground that the respondent had committed certain irregularities during his employment for which he was charge -sheeted and, therefore, disentitled himself for the amount contributed by the bank by virtue of Regulation 20.3(iii) of the Dena Bank (Officers) Service Regulation, 1979. Feeling aggrieved the respondent filed the instant complaint before the District Forum.

(2.) WHILE allowing the complaint, the District Forum, vide impugned Order dated 11.2.2004, found the appellant bank deficient in service in not releasing the full amount and directed it to release the balance amount of the PF representing the employers contribution along with interest to be calculated at the rate applicable to the Officers of the bank on their PF accumulated during the relevant period. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant bank has preferred this appeal.

(3.) ADMITTEDLY , the respondent was issued a Show Cause Notice dated 21.3.2000 followed by addendum dated 3.9.2002 for committing certain irregularities while working at Chhatarpur and Najafgarh Road, New Delhi, branch offices, in respect of which disciplinary proceedings were initiated. However, the respondent filed Writ Petition against the disciplinary proceedings before the High Court of Delhi and obtained stay, which is still continuing.