Back
1999 Supreme(Kar) 405
Karnataka High Court
B.VITTAL PAI - Appellant
Versus
SYNDICATE BANK, MANIPAL - Respondent
Decided On : 08-22-99
Headnote:Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970-Section 19(2)(d)-Syndicate Bank (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995-Regulation 26-Constitution of India-Article 14-Additional Service qualifying for pension-claim made can be held sustainable only if the provisions prescribed are fulfilled-in such cases there is no question of discrimination or any scope for making any grievance because imposition of certain conditions for the benefit of Additional Service cannot be held unreasonable or arbitrary.
Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970-Section 19(2)(d)-Syndicate Bank Officers Service Regulations, 1979-Regulation 20(3)(C)-Syndicate Bank (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995-Regulations 2(k), (w) and (y), 21 and 28-Constitution of India-Articles 19(1)(g) and 21-Bar to retirement due to suspension-as per the provisions of Regulation, an employee can be retained in service beyond the date of compulsory retirement due to pendency of departmental proceeding and until the enquiry in to the charges are finally concluded-if a person is retained in service due to disciplinary proceeding, he would not get another job of his choice-held, an officer so retained is entitled entire retrial benefits including the period of his retention.
Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970-Section 19(2)(d)-Syndicate Bank Officers Service Regulations, 1979-Regulations 2(k), (w) and (y), 21 and 28-Computation of service qualifying for pension-suspended employee retained in service beyond the period of compulsory retirement till conclusion of the proceeding initiated against him-punishment of reduction in rank awarded-entire period of service including the extended period beyond the date of compulsory retirement to be counted as qualifying service for pension.
( 1 ) THE petitioner, in this petition, is a former Assistant General Manager of the respondent-Syndicate Bank (hereinafter referred to as "the bank" ).
( 2 ) THE facts of this case are few and are not in dispute. They may be stated as hereunder: (A) The petitioner, who was originally employed in the Canara Banking Corporation limited, now known as Corporation Bank, as an officer, was appointed in the Executive Grade by the respondent-Bank, by means of its order dated 1st of April, 1969. The petitioner was born on 30th of September, 1932. The age of retirement of an employee of the bank till May 1998, was 58 years. Therefore, as per the service conditions of the Bank by which the petitioner was governed, the petitioner was to attain the age of superannuation on 12th of September, 1990, but in terms of the Explanation given to Regulation 19 (1) of the Syndicate bank Officers' Service Regulations, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as "the service Regulations"), the petitioner was to retire from service and relinquish his office only on 30th of September, 1990 being the end of the month. (B) However, by means of order dated 26th of September, 1990, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-D, the petitioner was kept under suspension and retained in service for the purpose of enquiry proposed to be held against him on account of certain charges of misconduct levelled against him. It is useful to extract the relevant portion of the said order, which reads as hereunder: "now, therefore, the undersigned in exercise of the powers conferred upon him under the said regulations hereby places Sri B. Vittal Pai under suspension with immediate effect. It is further ordered that Sri B. Vittal Pai shall not retire or be permitted to retire on his reaching the date of superannuation but shall be retained in the services until the enquiry into the charges/criminal offences is concluded and a final order is passed thereon by the competent Authority. During the period of suspension, Sri B. Vittal Pai will be paid subsistence allowance in terms of Regulation 14 of Syndicate bank Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 upto 30-9-1990. However, he is not entitled to any subsistence allowance in terms of Regulation 14. 4 of the said Regulations, thereafter". However, on the basis of the enquiry held against the petitioner, order dated 16th of June, 1995, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-H, came to be passed wherein the petitioner was found guilty of contributory negligence resulting in breach of Regulation 3 (1) read with regulation 24 of the Syndicate Bank Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulations, 1976, and, therefore, punishment by way of reduction of his basic Pay by one stage was awarded. Further, a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- being part of the pecuniary loss caused to the Bank due to the negligence on the part of the petitioner, was ordered to be recovered from the amount as may be due to him. (C) The appeal filed by the petitioner challenging the said order having been dismissed, the petitioner has challenged the said order in Writ petition No. 4513 of 1998 before this Court and the said petition is still pending consideration. Subsequent to the order Annexure-H passed by the Bank against the petitioner,the Bank had passed another order dated 14th of July, 1995, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-J, retiring the petitioner from service with effect from 30th of september, 1990. In the said order Annexure-J, the petitioner was also informed that consequent upon the reduction of pay-scale, his reduced pay was fixed at Rs. 5,350/- per month in the time scale of pay and a sum of Rs. 1,00,000-00 the petitioner was made liable to pay to the Bank towards the loss caused to the Bank, would be recovered from the terminal benefits payable to the petitioner. (D) Aggrieved by order Annexure-J notifying that the petitioner has retired from service with effect from 30th of September, 1990, the pe
