Aggrieved by the order dated 31.12.2012 passed by the Chief Manager, Syndicate Bank, whereby the Chief Manager has reduced twothird of the pension payable to the petitioner, the petitioner has approached this Court.

2. Briefly the facts of the case are that on 22.5.1972 the petitioner was appointed as a Clerk in the Syndicate Bank. From 19722006, considering his excellent service to the bank, he was given promotions one after the other, culminating in the post of Senior Manager in Grade ScaleV in the year 2006. However, on 20.3.2009, he was suspended due to certain alleged misconducts committed by him. The petitioner filed an Appeal against the suspension order. However, by an order dated 23.4.2009, the said Appeal was rejected. Subsequently, the petitioner was issued a charge sheet. Three charges were framed against the petitioner. The petitioner filed his reply on 22.4.2010. The Enquiry Officer, after completing the departmental enquiry, concluded that all the three charges were duly proved, in their entirety, against the petitioner. The petitioner filed his statement against the findings of the Enquiry Officer. After considering the petitioner’s statement and the enquiry report, by order dated 17.2.2011, the petitioner was imposed with the punishment of compulsory retirement from service. Aggrieved by the punishment order of compulsory retirement, on 18.4.2011, the petitioner filed a department appeal. However, the authority rejected his appeal by order dated 11.8.2011.

3. Thereafter, on 16.8.2012, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner to show the reasons as to why onethird pension should not be deducted for the alleged financial loss caused by him to the bank. The petitioner filed a detailed reply to the said notice. However, by order dated 25.10.2012, the respondent rejected the petitioner’s reply; the respondent directed that onethird of the pension, out of the twothird pension which has been paid to the petitioner, should be deducted. In terms of the order dated 25.10.2012, by order dated 31.12.2012, the petitioner is presently being paid only onethird of the pension, another onethird is being deducted towards the loss suffered by the bank and onethird stood reduced. Therefore, as the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 31.12.2012, he has filed the present petition before this Court.

4. Mr.M.N.Prasanna, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has raised the following contentions before this Court : firstly, Regulation 33 of the Syndicate Bank (Employees’) Pension Regulations, 1995 (`the Regulations’ for short), deals with compulsory retirement pension. According to Regulation 33 of the Regulations, an employee who has compulsorily retired by way of penalty, may be granted either full pension or not less than twothird of the pension. Thus, according to the learned counsel, there cannot be any deduction that would reduce the pension to less than two – third of the pension required to be paid to an employee.

Secondly, Chapter IX of the Regulations deals with the general conditions applicable to the payment of pension.

Regulation 43 of the Regulations deals with withholding or withdrawal of the pension. Even according to the proviso attached to Regulation 43 of the Regulations, a part of pension which is to be withheld or withdrawn, the amount of such pension shall not be reduced below the minimum pension per mensem payable under the Regulations. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, twothird of the pension should not be deducted from the petitioner’s pension as it would reduce his pension to only onethird, which is far below the minimum pension as prescribed by Regulation 33 of the Regulations.

Thirdly, since the respondents have claimed that they have exercised their power of reducing the pension to onethird, by relying on Regulation 48 of the Regulations, the learned counsel has argued extensively with regard to the said provision. While interpreting the said Regulation, the learned counsel has