RAVINDER KUMAR Vs. STATE BANK OF PATIALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two revision petitions (R.P.Nos.4327/2007 and 792/2008) have been filed by Ravinder Kumar (Petitioner herein) and State Bank of Patiala (Respondent herein) respectively against the single order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'State Commission') in Appeal No.A-2007/708 which has upheld the order of the District Forum.

(2.) In his complaint before the District Forum, Petitioner has contended that a departmental inquiry was held against him vide Charge-sheet No.AGM-I/STAFF/LRS/14044 dated 22.09.2000 on grounds of embezzlement of funds and the Assistant General Manager who was the disciplinary authority, had imposed a penalty of removal from service on him on 22.01.2001. According to the Petitioner, as per Clause 21(iv)(b) of the Bipartite Settlement dated 14.02.1995 which is relevant in such cases, Respondent was required to pay all superannuation benefits which included both his contribution to the Provident Fund as also that made by Respondent/Bank. However, Respondent/Bank did not release any of these benefits and in fact even debited Petitioner's own contribution to the Provident Fund on the grounds that it was adjusted against the embezzled amount of Rs.1,62,300/-. Petitioner also contended that the Respondent/Bank had already made adjustments against the embezzled amount by recovering Rs.70,000/- from the Petitioner and Rs.52,300/- on account of insurance claim. In addition, by adjusting Rs.62,414/- also from the Petitioner's own contribution towards Provided Fund, Respondent had in fact recovered an excess amount of Rs.22,414/- which in any case should have been refunded to him along with all the other superannuation benefits. Since representations to this effect were not heeded by the Respondent/Bank, Petitioner filed a complaint before the District Forum on grounds of deficiency in service and requested that Respondent/Bank be directed to pay him the above amounts.

(3.) The above facts were denied by the Respondents who contended that the Petitioner had himself admitted in writing vide his representation to the Assistant General Manager dated 11.10.2000, that he had embezzled the money and had requested for sympathetic consideration on humanitarian grounds and further requested that he was ready to make good the loss caused to the Respondent/Bank by his embezzlement by payment of Rs.70,000/- in cash as also adjusting his own contribution to Provident Fund or any other amounts which he had deposited with the Bank. Thus, the amount of Rs.70,000/- as well as Petitioner's own contribution to Provident Fund was adjusted against the embezzled amount on the written request of the Petitioner. Respondent confirmed that the Assistant General Manager who was the disciplinary authority after going through the enquiry proceedings had imposed a penalty of removal from service and that the case of the Petitioner was to be dealt with in terms of