UTTARAKHAND STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, DEHRADUN
Kumkum Rani, President and B.S. Manral, Member
Punjab National Bank – Appellant
versus
Sandeep M. Khalwalkar – Respondent
First Appeal No.128 of 2022
Decided on 1.5.2024

LAW POINT
Deduction – It is crystal clear that without any inquiry, the amount of penalty was deducted by the bank from the pension account of the complainant, which was not at all justified.

Headnote:

Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 41 – Services – Banking – Pension Services – Penalty – Justification for deduction – It is also an admitted fact that the date on which the amount of penalty was deducted from the pension account of the complainant, the complainant was not an employee of the bank and the account from which the amount of penalty was deducted, was being used for the purposes of crediting the amount of pension admissible to the complainant every month. Therefore, it is crystal clear that without any inquiry, the amount of penalty was deducted by the bank from the pension account of the complainant, which was not at all justified. It is an established law that no recovery can be made from the amount of pension admissible to an ex-employee unless there is specific order of any competent court to that effect – Thus, the finding of the District Commission is perfectly justified and in accordance with law and there is no illegality and irregularity in the impugned judgment and order passed by the District Commission and Commission was of the considered opinion that the bank has certainly committed deficiency in service by deducting the amount of penalty from the pension account of the complainant, without conducting any fair inquiry in the matter and giving a chance to the complainant of being heard and to have his say in the matter – Therefore, Appeal dismissed.

Held : We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is an admitted fact that the complainant completed his 35 years’ of service with Punjab National Bank and he had taken voluntary retirement on 31.03.2017. It is also an admitted fact that the amount of pension admissible to the complainant, was being credited to his Savings Bank Account with Punjab National Bank, Race Course, Dehradun. It is further not disputed that an amount of Rs. 1,05,137/- was deducted / transferred from the account of the complainant. It is also not disputed that when the complainant approached the aforesaid Branch of the bank in regard to the deduction of Rs. 1,05,137/- from his pension account, he was apprised that the amount has been deducted as penalty, on account of the reason that the complainant did not timely deposit the amount of T.D.S. with the Income Tax Department. \

The appellant – bank has not submitted any document in order to show that any inquiry was ever conducted by the bank in the instant matter, wherein the complainant was held liable for not depositing the amount of T.D.S. in time. It is also pertinent to mention here that the complainant was not given any opportunity of being heard by the bank before deducting / transferring the aforesaid amount from his pension account. As per the letter of Sh. S.K. Jain, Deputy General Manager, no direction had ever been issued to any of the Circle Offices for recovery of amount of penalty in relation to tax from any staff member. There is a letter dated 26.09.2017 issued by Deputy Circle Head of the bank (Paper No. 34) on record, which does not show that any notice was issued to the complainant by adopting the principle of natural justice and straight-away deduction was made from the pension account of the complainant. Thus, it is established on record that no inquiry was ever conducted by the bank in regard to the deduction of the amount of penalty imposed by the Income Tax Department from the pension account of the complainant. Therefore, the bank has not ascertained by way of fair inquiry as to which official of the bank was at fault for not timely depositing the amount of T.D.S. with the Income Tax Department, as a result of which, penalty was imposed upon the bank.

It is also an admitted fact that the date on which the amount of penalty was deducted from the pension account of the complainant, the complainant was not an employee of the bank and the account from which the amount of penalty was deducted, was being used for the purposes of crediting the amount of pension admissible to the complainant every month. Therefore, it is crystal clear that without any inquiry, the amount of penalty was deducted by the bank from the pension account of the complainant, which was not at all justified. It is an established law that no recovery can be made from the amount of pension admissible to an ex-employee unless there is specific order of any competent court to that effect.

On the basis of the appreciation of evidence on record, we are of the considered opinion that the finding of the District Commission is perfectly justified and in accordance with law and we find no illegality and irregularity in the impugned judgment and order passed by the District Commission and we are of the considered opinion that the bank has certainly committed deficiency in service by deducting the amount of penalty from the pension account of the complainant, without conducting any fair inquiry in the matter and giving a chance to the complainant of being heard and to have his say in the matter. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the finding recorded by the District Commission. We are also of the view that learned District Commission has rightly allowed the consumer complaint. The impugned judgment and order passed by the District Commission is not perverse. Hence, the appeal filed by the bank is liable to be dismissed.

Appeal is dismissed. Impugned judgment and order dated 28.05.2022 passed by the District Commission is hereby affirmed. No order as to costs of the appeal. [Paras 6 to 10].

Result: Appeal dismissed.