IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Mini Pushkarna, J.
S. C. Sapra – Appellant
Versus
Punjab National Bank – Respondent
W.P.(C) 2143 of 2012 & CM APPLs. 4634 of 2012, CM APPL.
Decided On : 02-02-2023
Punishment - Compulsory Retirement - Gratuity Act, 1972, Section 4(6) - HRD Circular No. 464 dated 03.06.2008 - Board of Directors Resolution No. 9 dated 25 & 26.07.2013 - Circular dated 20.05.2014
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking to quash the Enquiry Officer's Report, Punishment Order, and subsequent dismissal of appeal and review, as the petitioner's pension was being deducted despite entitlement to full pension as per respondent's circulars.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the punishment of compulsory retirement imposed on the petitioner did not make any reference to pension deduction, and thus, the petitioner was entitled to full pension as per the Circular dated 20.05.2014. The court directed the respondent to pay the arrears of the deducted pension to the petitioner.
Issues: The issues revolved around the entitlement of the petitioner to full pension despite the punishment of compulsory retirement and the applicability of the Circular dated 20.05.2014.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the Circular dated 20.05.2014, which stated that full pension should be allowed to the employee if no reference regarding reduction in the Terminal Dues by the Disciplinary Authority is made in the final order. The court also considered the provisions of the Gratuity Act, 1972, and the HRD Circular No. 464 dated 03.06.2008, along with the Board of Directors Resolution No. 9 dated 25 & 26.07.2013.
Final Decision: The court directed the respondent to provide the petitioner with complete pension as per the Circular dated 20.05.2014 and to pay the arrears of the deducted pension to the petitioner.
JUDGMENT
[Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing]
Mini Pushkarna, J. (Oral)
1. The present writ petition has been filed with prayer for quashing the Enquiry Officer's Report dated 01.10.2010, Punishment Order dated 20.10.2010, order dated 11.02.2011 passed by the Appellate Authority dismissing the appeal of the petitioner and order dated 30.09.2011 passed by the reviewing authority dismissing the departmental review preferred by the petitioner.
2. The petitioner herein had been imposed with the punishment of compulsory retirement just two days before his retirement. Thus, the said punishment as imposed upon the petitioner is subject matter of the present writ petition.
3. It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that 1/3rd of the pension of the petitioner is being deducted and that he is being released only 2/3rd pension. Ld. Counsel for petitioner submits that by virtue of their own circulars of the respondents, the petitioner is entitled to full pension and that no deduction in the pension of the petitioner can be made by the respondents.
4. Attention of this Court is drawn to the Circular dated 20.05.2014 as issued by the Punjab National Bank, PF & Pension Fund Department, wherein it is clearly stated that full pension be allowed to the employee in case no reference regarding reduction in the Terminal Dues by the Disciplinary Authority in the final order is made. The said circular reads as under:
"PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK
PF & PENSION FUND DEPARTMENT
HO: RAJINDRA PLACE, NEW DELHI
Date: 20.05.2014
PF & PENSION FUND DEPARTMENT CIRCULAR No. 09/2014
"REG: Payment of Gratuity in cases where services of the employees are terminated by way of punishment like CRS, Dismissal & Removal.
In cases where the services of the employees are terminated by way of punishment such as CRS, Dismissal & Removal, there may or may not be any loss caused to the bank. In such cases at the time of settlement of gratuity, PF & Pension Fund department raises querry as to whether the aspect for forfeiture of gratuity has been looked into.
In terms of HRD Cir No. 464 dated 03.06.2008 (1) Circle Head/Divisional Head/GM-HR, as the case may be, is competent to forfeit the gratuity payable to the concerned employee. (2) Chief Manager at Controlling Office/HO Division is competent to sanction gratuity payable to the concerned employee.
FORFEITURE OF GRATUITY UNDER GRATUITY ACT, 1972
Section 4(6) of the gratuity Act, 1972 provides as under:
"Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1)
a) the gratuity of an employee, whose services have been terminated for any act, willful omission or negligence causing any damage or loss to, or destruction of, property belonging to the employer, shall be forfeited to the extent of the damage or loss so caused;
b) the gratuity payable to an employee shall be wholly forfeited :
i) If the services of such employee have been terminated for his riotous or disorderly conduct or any other act of violence on his part, or
ii) "If the services of such employee have been terminated for any act which constitutes an offence involving moral turpitude, provided that such offence is committed by him in the course of his employment."
FORFEITURE OF GRATUITY UNDER AWARD/SETTLEMENT
In terms of PO Cir. No.1565 regarding "Payment of Gratuity" there shall be no forfeiture of gratuity on dismissal 1 removal from service of any workman (award staff) on account of misconduct, except in cases where such misconduct causes financial loss to the bank and in that case to that extent only.
Moreover, the Board of Directors vide its Resolution No. 9 in meeting dated 25 & 26.07.2013 has also desired that "ordinarily full pension be allowed to the employee in case no reference regarding reduction in the Terminal Dues by Disciplinary Authority (DA) in the final order is made. However, where the Disciplinary Authority makes a reference in the final order to reduce pension, the matter be placed before the competent authority as per Pension Regulations"
Settlement of gratuity is del
The main legal point established in the judgment is that an employee is entitled to full pension if no reference regarding reduction in terminal dues is made by the Disciplinary Authority, as per the....
Point of law: Since there is no provision for forfeiting past service in cases of compulsory retirement, and in the absence of disciplinary authority reducing pension while imposing punishment, a sec....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the reduction in pension should be considered by the authority imposing the penalty at the time of imposition, and failure to do so would amou....
(1) Forfeiture of gratuity may be directed to the extent of damage or loss so caused or destruction of property belonging to employer.(2) Provisions of Gratuity Act have superiority over all other pr....
The central legal point established in the judgment is that under Rule 43(c) of the Bihar Pension Rules, if no departmental or criminal proceedings are pending against a government servant at the tim....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.