Back
2016 Supreme(Cal) 1036
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Arijit Banerjee, J.
CHITTA RANJAN GHOSH - Appellant
Vs.
UCO BANK AND OTHERS - Respondent
WP 325 of 2015
Decided On : 19-05-2016
For the Appellant :Mr. Sutanu Chakraborti, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Soumya Majumder, Ms. Rajarshi Dutta and Mr. Sourjya Roy, Advocates
An employee against whom judicial proceedings are instituted before the date of his retirement or a pension against whom such proceedings are instituted after the date of his retirement shall not be eligible to commute a fraction of his provisional pension, or pension, as the case may be, authorised under these regulations during the pendency of such proceedings.
Headnote:
UCO BANK (EMPLOYEES) PENSION REGULATIONS, 1995 - COMMUTATION OF PENSION - JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS PENDING - RIGHT TO COMMUTATION DISENTITLED - PENSIONER NOT ENTITLED TO COMMUTATION OF PENSION OR CONVERSION OF PROVISIONAL PENSION TO REGULAR PENSION.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, a retired employee of UCO Bank, sought a writ of mandamus directing the bank to process his application for commutation of pension and release the same without delay, and also to convert his provisional pension to a regular pension. The bank resisted the petition relying on Regulations 46 to 48 of the UCO Bank (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995, which disentitle an employee to commute a fraction of his provisional pension or pension during the pendency of judicial proceedings against him.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner was not entitled to commutation of pension or conversion of his provisional pension to a regular pension. The court found that a judicial proceeding was instituted against the petitioner prior to his retirement and was pending on the date of the order. Therefore, Rule 47 of the 1995 Regulations clearly disentitled the petitioner to commute the provisional pension or pension.
Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to commutation of pension and conversion of his provisional pension to a regular pension.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Rule 47 of the 1995 Regulations provides that a person against whom judicial proceedings are instituted before or after the date of his retirement, shall not be eligible to commute a fraction of his provisional pension, or pension as the case may be, during the pendency of such proceedings. 2. The criminal proceeding pending against the petitioner is directly related to the discharge of duty by the petitioner as an employee of the respondent bank. 3. Rule 48 of the 1995 Regulations clearly entitles the competent authority to withhold a pension or part thereof, whether permanently or for a specified period and order recovery from pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the bank if in any judicial proceedings the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence or criminal breach of trust or forgery or acts done fraudulently during the period of his service.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Arijit Banerjee, J.
In this writ application the petitioner prays for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to process his application for commutation of pension and release the same without any delay and also to convert his provisional pension to a regular pension.
Case of the petitioner:-
2. The petitioner joined the respondent bank in the year 1971. From time to time he was promoted and in the year 2003 he was promoted to the post of General Manager in the banks top executive grade.
3. During the period 21 June, 2001 till 8 April, 2003, the petitioner was posted as General Manager, Regional Office, Calcutta. A letter dated 29 September, 2004 was served on the petitioner wherein the respondent bank alleged certain irregularities in the advance portfolio of the banks Beck Bagan Branch during the year 2001-02. The petitioner was called upon to offer an explanation regarding such alleged irregularities.
4. The petitioner, by his letter dated 27 October, 2004, replied to the said letter of the bank and explained as to why he could not be held responsible for the alleged irregularities.
5. After receipt of the said reply from the petitioner there was complete silence on the part of the respondent bank. The petitioner presumed that the bank was satisfied with his reply and had closed the chapter. The petitioner was due to retire on 31 December, 2009.
6. The bank issued a letter dated 20 October, 2009 calling upon the petitioner to submit his terminal benefits claim papers at the earliest so that the process of payment of terminal benefits could be expedited. The petitioner duly filled in all such papers and the same were forwarded to the Assistant General Manager, Personnel Services Department by the Chief Officer (Recovery) under cover of a letter dated 24 November, 2009.
7. Seven days prior to the petitioners retirement, a charges-sheet dated 24 December, 2009 was issued by the bank to the petitioner. The articles of charges and statement of allegations were the same as contained in the letter dated 29 September, 2004 that had been issued by the bank five years before.
8. By another letter dated 24/26 December, 2009 the bank informed the petitioner that disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner and since the same cannot be completed before the date of retirement of the petitioner i.e. 31 December, 2009, the competent authority had decided to invoke Regulation 20(3)(iii) of the UCO Bank (Officers) Service Regulations, 1979 as amended, which reads as follows:-
"20(3)(iii). The Officer against whom disciplinary proceedings have been initiated will cease to be in service on the date of superannuation but the disciplinary proceedings will continue as if he was in service until the proceedings are concluded and final order is passed in respect thereof. The concerned officer will not receive any pay and/or allowance after the date of superannuation. He will also not be entitled for the payments of retirement benefits till the proceedings are completed and final order is passed thereon except his own contributions to CPF."
It was stated in the said letter that the petitioner would cease to be in the service of the bank with effect from 1 January, 2010 but the disciplinary proceedings will continue against him as if he was still in service until completion of the disciplinary proceedings and passing of the final order.
9. The General Manager, Personnel Services, UCO Bank wrote a letter dated 1 January, 2010 to the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) with a copy to the petitioner informing him that the petitioner is not entitled to payment of retirement benefits till the disciplinary proceedings are completed and final order is passed except his own contribution to Provident Fund and provisional pension. The matter of payment of gratuity would be decided on the basis of outcome of the disciplinary proceedings.
10. By his letter dated 28 January, 2010 the petitioner replied to the charge-sheet denying all
