Disciplinary removal does not forfeit pension entitlement due to regulatory amendments; dual punishment is against principles of fairness.

JUDGMENT :

ANANYA BANDYOPADHYAY, J.

1. The petitioner through the instant writ petition expressing grievance assailed the disciplinary order dated 27.10.2014, the appellate order dated 25.03.2015 and the reviewing order dated 30.09.2015 whereby he was removed from service of the Punjab National Bank. Consequential relief is sought for grant of retiral benefits, including leave encashment and pension in terms of the Bipartite Settlement and the Bank Employees’ Pension Regulation, 1995.

2. The facts revealed the petitioner was appointed on 10.12.1984 as Manager- cum-Clerk-cum-Cashier in the respondent Bank, a Public Sector Undertaking, which by reason of majority Government shareholding constituted “State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. His services were confirmed and upon promotion, he was posted as Incumbent-in-Charge of the Talai Branch, District- Murshidabad on 17.11.2011. The petitioner asserted that he was the sole functionary of the branch discharging multifarious responsibilities in the absence of support staff and was constrained to follow the practices of his predecessor no specific guidelines having been furnished by the superior authority.

3. On 14.02.2014, a charge-sheet was issued alleging several acts of misconduct. Certain charges were not proved while others were partly substantiated. The Enquiry Officer submitted his final report on 09.09.2014. The disciplinary authority, upon consideration of the materials, imposed the major penalty of removal from service without disqualification for future employment by order dated 27.10.2014 under Regulation 4(i) of the PENSION REGULATIONS .

4. The petitioner’s departmental appeal dated 26.11.2014 was dismissed on 25.03.2015. A supplementary appeal was not entertained and the petitioner was advised to pursue a review. He accordingly preferred review petitions dated 23.07.2015 and 14.08.2015 respectively which were rejected by order dated 30.09.2015.

5. On 19.11.2015, the petitioner thereafter issued a demand for justice seeking disbursement of retiral dues including provident fund, gratuity and pension. His grievance led to institution of W.P. No.30297(W) of 2015 which was disposed of by order dated 03.02.2016 upon a consensus between the parties, in terms of the said order, the Bank adjusted certain recoverable dues and disbursed an amount of Rs.71,643/- by demand draft dated 22.02.2016 towards gratuity.

6. Despite such adjustment, the petitioner continued to represent to the authorities relying, inter alia, on a certificate of appreciation dated 15.05.2012 issued by the Field General Manager contending his subsequent liability towards personal loans was wrongfully treated as unauthorized. Repeated representations dated 21.04.2017, 31.07.2017 and 05.09.2017 were submitted praying for reconsideration of the order of removal and for grant of pensionary benefits as per Bank Employees’ PENSION REGULATIONS , 1995, but the authorities remained unmoved.

7. The petitioner averred that had the Bank raised the alleged claims earlier, he would have been in a position to disprove the charges forming the basis of his removal. It was further urged that the respondent authorities had willfully failed to comply with the directions contained in the order of the Co- ordinate Bench dated 03.02.2016, thereby amounting to Contempt of Court. According to the petitioner, the inaction of the Bank occasioned a recurring and fresh cause of action for invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court.

8. The Learned Advocate representing the petitioner asserted certain expenditures i