STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. NAGENDRA CHOUDHARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 11.12.2008 passed in W. P.(S) No. 5184/2005 by which the learned Single Judge, after assigning reasons, allowed the writ petition, but on the request of the counsel for the respondent -Bank/appellant herein praying for a week's time to seek instruction to settle the matter without inviting any adverse order, adjourned the matter. In view of his request, the learned Single Judge, though had allowed the writ petition, was pleased to grant two weeks further time to the appellant -Bank to come out with instructions. When the writ petition was listed again on 21.1.2009, the appellant -Bank, instead of informing the Court regarding the instruction, reiterated the argument, which was not permitted by the learned Single Judge, for the sole reason that the final order had already been passed earlier but was kept in abeyance at the request of the counsel of the appellant Bank that they will settle the matter before the next date of hearing instead of inviting any adverse order. The learned Single Judge, therefore, finally allowed the writ petition on 21.1.2009, as a result of which the prayer of the petitioner/respondent herein for quashing the letter dated 27.4.2005, by which the appellant Bank communicated to the petitioner/respondent herein that he is not entitled to pensionary benefit as he had not completed 20 years of pensionable service, obviously stood allowed and the letter dated 27.4.2005 also stood quashed and set aside. Further the retiral dues of the petitioner, which included gratuity, provident fund, leave encashment etc., were allowed to be availed by the respondent employee, as per the order of the appellant Bank itself.

(2.) THE relevant details giving rise to this appeal may be briefly recorded herein for the purpose of appreciation of the controversy involved herein. The respondent was serving as a Cashier in the category of Class -III and an enquiry was initiated against him after serving a memorandum of charges which alleged that he had defalcated a sum of Rs. sixteen thousand and odd by removing the currency notes from different packets of the denomination of Rs. 100/ -. The memorandum of charges further alleged that he had taken L.T.C. advance for himself and for his family members but did not undertake the journey and used the amount for some other purpose. An enquiry thereafter was held against the respondent -employee and the enquiry report was submitted. Though the charge of defalcation of removing currency notes from different packets was not proved, the charge of misuse of the L.T.C. amount; meaning thereby that he had taken the L.T.C. amount for himself and his family members without undertaking the journey, was held to have been proved. It may be relevant to state that in the meantime, after issuance of the chargesheet, the respondent -employee was put under suspension from 4.4.1994 upto the date of his removal, i. e. 23.3.1998. An order of punishment was, therefore, imposed on the respondent employee dismissing him from service. But the respondent -delinquent employee preferred an appeal against the order of his dismissal before the appellate authority, which considered the matter and finally was pleased to convert the order of dismissal into an order of removal from service. The appellate authority, however, allowed the superannuation benefit but was pleased to record on 8.11.1999 that the period of suspension will not be treated as the period spent on duty. The respondent - delinquent employee assailed the order of removal from service by filing a writ petition before this Court in the year 1999 bearing CWJC No. 3323/1999, but the writ petition was dismissed against which the appeal was preferred but the appeal also stood dismissed. However, it was observed therein that the respondent employee would be entitled to retiral benefits which, in fact, had already been granted by the appellate authority itself, as indicated hereinbefore. The respondent employee thereafter received the retiral benefits which included the amount towards his provident fund, gratuity and leave encashment. However, an order was passed on 27.4.2005 communicating to the respondent employee that he would not be entitled to pensionary benefit since he had not completed 20 years of service, which would have held him entitled to pension, prior to his removal from service. This obviously gave rise to a fresh cause of action to the respondent employee by filing a writ petition, which he did by filing the writ petition bearing W.P.(S) No. 5184/2005 out of which the present appeal arises. He had, therefore, assailed the order dated 27.4.2005 by which the pensionary benefit was denied to him. The counsel for the respondent Bank/appellant herein vehemently contested the matter and submitted that the petitioner/respondent herein could not be held entitled to pensionary benefit, as prior to his removal from service he was put under suspension and he remained under suspension for a period from 4.4.1994 to 23.3.1998, which was the date of his removal. The appellant, therefore, had submitted before the learned Single Judge that the period during which the respondent employee remained under suspension could not be counted as the period on duty and if that period is deducted, then the respondent employee does not possess the qualifying service of 20 years which could hold him entitled to pensionary benefit. Prior to this, the respondent employee admittedly had completed 19 years and 2 months of service and thereafter an enquiry was initiated against him, which compelled him to remain away as he was put under suspension. As already stated, the learned Single Judge, after hearing the counsel for the parties and after duly assigning reasons, was pleased to allow the writ petition on 11.12.2008, but on the request of the counsel for the appellant Bank, which submitted that matter may be settled without inviting any adverse order against the Bank, adjourned the matter and thereafter the matter was taken up on 21.1.2009, on which date the counsel for the appellant Bank, instead of apprising the Court regarding the instruction sought by him, went on contesting the matter on merit which the learned Single Judge refused to permit as the order had already been passed but was kept in abeyance only to grant last opportunity to the appellant Bank to apprise the Court regarding the outcome of the settlement, which had failed. The writ petition, therefore, was finally allowed by the order dated 21.1.2009.

(3.) HOWEVER , we do not find any force in the contention of the counsel for the appellant bank, in view of the reasons assigned by the learned Single Judge. We also noticed that the question of denial of the pensionary benefit, first of all, arose when the appellant bank issued an order on 27.4.2005 communicating to the respondent employee that he is not entitled to pensionary benefit as he has failed to earn 20 years of qualifying service so as to claim pensionary benefit.