Natural justice principles must be observed in the exercise of discretionary powers affecting employee pension rights, even if not explicitly mandated by regulations.

JUDGMENT

Jyoti Singh, J. (ORAL)

1. Present petition has been filed by the Petitioner seeking setting aside of the decisions of the Executive Director dated 07.12.2016, Board of Directors dated 17.01.2017 and the letter dated 10.02.2017, whereby Respondents have decided to grant only 2/3rd pension to the Petitioner under Regulation 33 of the Bank of Baroda (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as `Regulations 1995').

2. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the Petitioner which culminated into a penalty of `compulsory retirement' on 27.05.2016. Petitioner requested for release of his retiral benefits towards Gratuity, Leave Encashment, commutation of pension etc. but there was no response. On 23.03.2017, the Appellate Authority rejected the appeal of the Petitioner against the penalty of compulsory retirement. On 22.01.2017, Petitioner was informed that a decision had been taken sanctioning only 2/3rd pension to the Petitioner, on account of the penalty imposed on him.

3. Several grounds have been raised in the writ petition challenging the impugned decision of the Respondents, withholding 25% of the pension of the Petitioner. However, at the outset, learned counsel for the Petitioner, on instructions, restricts the argument, at this stage, to violation of principles of natural justice, contending that no notice and/or opportunity of personal hearing was afforded to the Petitioner, prior to passing the cryptic and unreasoned impugned order.

4. Aptly encapsulated, contention on behalf of the Petitioner is that though Regulation 33 of Regulations 1995 is silent on the procedure to be followed before withholding part of the pension, however, as the provision infringes on the right of an employee to receive full pension, principles of natural justice ought to be read into Regulation 33 and the affected employee must be informed of the reason for which the Competent Authority proposes to withhold the pension and before taking any such decision, a fair hearing must be given to the employee concerned. In the present case, there is a clear breach of the principles of natural justice, as neither a notice was given to the Petitioner nor was he given an opportunity of hearing. It is possible that Petitioner may have succeeded in persuading the Respondents to withhold lesser percentage of pension as Regulation 33 gives power to withhold maximum 25% of pension but in a given case, it can be lesser. In support, reliance is placed on the judgment of the High Court of Gujarat in A.N. Puniwala v. Bank of India and Ors., 2007 SCC OnLine Guj 367.

5. Learned counsel for the Respondents, on the other hand, opposes the contention raised by the Petitioner, firstly, on the ground that the writ petition is barred by delay and laches since the impugned order was passed in the year 2017 and in support, relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Chairman/Managing Director, U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. and Others v. Ram Gopal, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 101, more particularly, para 16 thereof, wherein it was held that though limitation does not strictly apply to proceedings under Articles 32 and Article 226 of the Constitution of India, nevertheless, such rights cannot be enforced after an unreasonable lapse of time. Relevant para is as follows:

"16. Whilst it is true that limitation does not strictly apply to proceedings under Articles 32 or 226 of the Constitution of India, nevertheless, such rights cannot be enforced after an unreasonable lapse of time. Consideration of unexplained delays and inordinate laches would always be relevant in writ actions and writ courts naturally ought to be reluctant in exercising their discretionary jurisdiction to protect those who have slept over wrongs and allowed illegalities to fester. Fence-sitters cannot be allowed to barge into courts and cry for their rights at their convenience, and vigilant citizens ought not tobe treated, alike with mere opportunists. On multiple occasi