Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(Del) 2339

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
V. Kameswar Rao, J.
V.K. Malhotra - Appellant
Versus
Union Bank Of India And Ors - Respondent
W.P.(C) No. 625 of 2016
Decided On : 05-04-2021

Advocates appeared:
G.S. Chaturvedi, Advocate, S. Chaturvedi, Advocate, O.P. Gaggar, Advocate, Sachindra Karu, Advocate

The court established that no chargesheet can be issued for events that occurred more than four years before its issuance, as per the Pension Regulations. Additionally, the court emphasized that the denial of gratuity and leave encashment, and the withholding of pension were unjustified as there was no criminal case initiated against the petitioner for acts involving moral turpitude.

Headnote:
Territorial Jurisdiction - Chargesheet - Pension Regulations - Gratuity - Leave Encashment
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a bank employee, filed a petition challenging the chargesheets issued against him and subsequent penalties imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. The petitioner contended that the chargesheets and inquiry proceedings were conducted after his compulsory retirement, and the events mentioned in the chargesheets occurred more than four years before their issuance. The respondent bank argued that the chargesheets were valid and the penalties were justified based on the petitioner's misconduct.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that it had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition as some inquiry proceedings were held in Delhi, and a part of the cause of action had arisen there. The court quashed the chargesheet issued on May 31, 2013, as the events mentioned in it had occurred more than four years before its issuance. The court also set aside the penalty of permanently withholding the petitioner's pension and remanded the matter back to the Disciplinary Authority to pass a fresh order on the chargesheet dated November 11, 2009. The court further directed the respondent bank to release the petitioner's gratuity, leave encashment, and arrears of pension with interest.
Issues: Territorial jurisdiction, validity of chargesheets, applicability of Pension Regulations, forfeiture of gratuity, denial of leave encashment, and arrears of pension
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that it had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition as a part of the cause of action had arisen in Delhi. The court also ruled that no chargesheet can be issued for events that occurred more than four years before its issuance, as per the Pension Regulations. Additionally, the court found that the denial of gratuity and leave encashment, and the withholding of pension were unjustified as there was no criminal case initiated against the petitioner for acts involving moral turpitude.
Final Decision: The court quashed the chargesheet issued on May 31, 2013, set aside the penalty of permanently withholding the petitioner's pension, and remanded the matter back to the Disciplinary Authority to pass a fresh order on the chargesheet dated November 11, 2009. The court directed the respondent bank to release the petitioner's gratuity, leave encashment, and arrears of pension with interest.

JUDGMENT

V. Kameswar Rao, J. - The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:

"In view of the foregoing submissions, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to:

(a) issue writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) quashing the charge-sheets dated 11.11.2009 and 31.05.2013 as also consequent illegal inquiry and Report dated 5.2.14 and orders dated 06.01.2015 and 28.05.2015 passed by the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 as also show-cause notice dated 23.10.2015;

(b) issue writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) directing the Respondents to grant full pension as also other retiral benefits including leave encashment and gratuity w.e.f. 12.12.09 with interest;

(c) cost of this Writ Petition may kindly be also allowed in favour of the Petitioner and against the Respondents since the Petitioner has been suffering due to malafide and illegal actions of the Respondents;

(d) pass such other or further order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper on the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice."

2. The brief facts as noted from the petition are, three chargeheets have been issued to the petitioner, the same being dated November 29, 2008, November 11, 2009 and May 31, 2013.

3. The case of the petitioner and so contended by his Counsel Mr. G.S. Chaturvedi is that the first chargesheet had resulted in an order of dismissal from service vide order dated December 3, 2009 served on the petitioner on December 11, 2009, which is 20 days before his actual superannuation on December 31, 2009. The petitioner appealed against the order of dismissal dated December 3, 2009 vide his appeal dated January 9, 2010 which was accepted by the Appellate Authority and the penalty of dismissal from service was converted into penalty of compulsory retirement vide order dated March 6, 2012. It is contended by Mr. Chaturvedi that the petitioner did not receive pension in the intervening period between December 12, 2009 to March 6, 2012 nor encashment of earned leave and gratuity was paid though, he stood compulsory retired. Mr. Chaturvedi contended that the chargesheets dated November 11, 2009 and May 31, 2013 were decided in terms of common order January 6, 2015, whereby it was decided to withhold permanently pension of the petitioner. He submitted that this order was passed by the Disciplinary Authority by showing disagreement with the findings of inquiry officer where honesty and integrity of the petitioner is not in doubt, was ove rruled. According to Mr. Chaturvedi, the Disciplinary Authority was required to issue a show-cause notice along with the note of disagreement before inflicting the penalty on the petitioner. In this regard, he has relied upon a Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Punjab National Bank v. Kunj Bihari Mishra, (1998) 7 SCC 84.

4. Mr. Chaturvedi would attack the two chargesheets and consequent inquiry resulting in the order of withholding of pension permanently by contending that no inquiry could have been conducted after the dismissal / compulsory retirement, of the petitioner. According to him, there is no provision in the Rules of the Bank to conduct enquiry in a chargesheet after dismissal / compulsory retirement of the petitioner nor the same has been justified by the respondents in their counter-affidavit. As such if employment of the petitioner had come to an end on December 11, 2009, consequent to service of order dated December 3, 2009, no enquiry proceedings in the said chargesheet could be continued, that too after a period of almost 4 years on May 31, 2013. He submitted that even otherwise, the respondents have not explained the delay in initiating the inquiry proceedings after 4 years of cessation of service whereby grave prejudice has been caused to the petitioner. In this regard, he has relied upon the Judgment of this Court in the case of N.S. Bhatn