SATISH SIKRI Vs. CHAIRMAN & MD, CANARA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (substituted now) (for short "the Act") has been filed by the Petitioner (hereinafter be referred as "the Complainant") challenging the dismissal of his Complaint No.74 of 2013 vide order dated 07.12.2017 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-X, Delhi (for short "the District Forum") and dismissal of his Appeal No.10/2018 vide order dated 06.07.2020 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (for short "the State Commission") confirming the order of the District Forum.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the Complainant/Petitioner had been working with the Respondent Bank and was a member of Contributory Provident Fund Scheme. In the year 1995, he opted for Family Pension Scheme under the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995 in lieu of the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme. At the relevant time, he was working as Senior Manager and Branch In-charge. During the proceedings under Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) against the Bank, he was found prima-facie involved in the corruption. Criminal enquiries under Prevention of Corruption Act had started against him and he was finally convicted under the said Act in 2018. The order of conviction is under challenge as an Appeal has been filed by the Complainant. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated and the charges stood proved against him and vide order dated 23.06.2010, he was dismissed from the service. He preferred an Appeal against his dismissal and the appellate authority vide its order dated 07.10.2012 dismissed the Appeal. Thereafter Review Petition against the order of dismissal was also dismissed by the appellate authority. He had subsequently challenged his dismissal order before the High Court of Delhi which is still pending.

(3.) The Complainant was not paid any pension under the Pension Scheme to which he was a member and therefore, he had filed the Complaint before the District Forum on 07.02.2013. His main contention was that without following the prescribed procedure and without passing any order of forfeiture of his pension, the pension had wrongly been denied to him. He had sought directions from the District Forum for payment of his pension, compensation and costs of litigation.