SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Guj) 522

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
BIREN VAISHNAV, J.
AMITA C. NANAVATI - Appellant
Versus
STATE BANK OF INDIA & others - Respondent
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14171 of 2007
Decided On : 22-07-2021

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :MS. SHIVANGI RANA, ADVOCATE FOR MR SP MAJMUDAR
For the Respondent: MR NAGESH C SOOD

Point of Law: Exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India, as far as justiciability of order of penalty is concerned - Order of penalty so confirmed by appellate authority and prayers made in petition for setting aside order, same is not interfered with.

Headnote:

Constitution of India,1950 - Article 226 - order or directions quashing and setting aside the inquiry officers report - gratuity / Provident Fund - seeking directions upon respondent bank to release the terminal benefits in favour of petitioner - Whether the said submission by learned advocate for the respondent bank is factually correct or not - whether the petitioner had actually completed 20 years of continuous service as contemplated under Service Regulations of the bank or not - Petitioner was working with the State Bank of India - Case of the petitioner is that she received a show cause notice, first suggesting that she had violated rules of conduct inasmuch as that she had borrowed from M/s. amount of written prior permission of a designated authority - She had also availed a House Renovation Loan for against mortgage of property from Jahnavi Home Development and Finance without the written prior permission of a designated authority

Finding of the court: Observations of the appellate authority need consideration which says that the decision of the disciplinary authority to impose the penalty of “removal” in a case wanting nothing less than dismissal seems to have emerged out of compassion but without compromising the interest of the bank - Period of extraordinary leave of 284 days also needs to be excluded. The case of the bank is that she became a member of the pension fund on 01.09.1986. Apparently, the deficit, therefore, in completing 20 years is of ten months. That is an issue which the petitioner’s counsel has vehemently disputed by submitting that the service record of the petitioner has not been properly verified.

Result: Petition is disposed of

JUDGMENT :

1 This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed with the following prayers, which was subsequently amended. The original prayer and the amended prayers read as under:

    “23(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or directions quashing and setting aside the inquiry officers report dated 08.11.2004 in respect of chargesheet No. AGM/III/DC/39 (at Annexure-G hereto) as well as order dated 31.08.2006 passed by the disciplinary authority (at Annexure-N hereto) and 17.01.2007 passed by the appellate authority of the respondent – Bank (at Annexure – P hereto) and further be pleased to direct the respondent – Bank to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits;

Amended carried out as per Court’s order

23(AA) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside impugned order dated 14.07.2017 (at ANNEXURE-Q) issued by respondent – bank to release pension in favour of petitioner along with arrears and interest at the rate of 12% for the delayed period.

23(AB) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to direct the respondent – bank to supply the entire and complete service sheet and leave record of the petitioner for the purpose of determining the qualifying service of petitioner with the respondent bank and calculating pension and other benefits accordingly.

Amended carried out as per Court’s order

18(A) It is respectfully stated and submitted that bank had earlier not paid gratuity / Provident Fund and therefore the petitioner had moved an application registered as Civil Application No. 6492 of 2013 seeking directions upon respondent bank to release the terminal benefits in favour of petitioner. The petitioner further submits that pursuant to the order passed by this Hon’ble Court in the aforesaid application, the bank has released the amount towards gratuity / provident fund. However, since pension is not released, the petitioner was compelled to prefer an application being Civil Application No. 5196 of 2017 with a prayer to direct respondent to pay pension along with arrears and interest at the rate of 12% to the applicant during pendency of the captioned petition. The aforesaid application came to be disposed of vide order dated 06.06.2017 with a direction to the respondent bank to expeditiously undertake necessary exercise with regard to petitioner’s request for pension and after taking into consideration her service record and aplicable service regulations if the petitioner is found eligible for pension in accordance with service Regulations then such amount shall be paid to the petitioner within six weeks from the receipt of the order, with interest at the rate of 8%. Annexed hereto and marked as ANNEXURE-P is a copy of aforesaid order dated 06.06.2017.

18(B) Thereafter, the petitioner received an order dated 14.07.2017 from the respondent bank whereby the petitioner is informed that she is not eligible for pension since the service length of the applicant is less than 20 years. Annexed hereto and marked as ANNEXURE – Q is a copy of order dated 14.07.2017 issued by respondent bank.”

2. The facts in brief are as under:

2.1 The petitioner was working with the State Bank of India, Salabatpura Branch, Surat. The case of the petitioner is that she received a show cause notice, first on 29.03.2004 suggesting that she had violated the rules of conduct inasmuch as that she had borrowed from M/s. Panchsheel Co-Op Bank Ltd., Surat an amount of Rs.25,000/- on 30.04.2002 without the written prior permission of a designated authority. That she had also availed a House Renovation Loan for Rs.1,50,000/- against mortgage of property from Jahnavi Home Development and Finance Ltd., Surat on 20.11.2001 without the wr

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

    Please visit our Training & Support
    Center or Contact Us for assistance

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top