Discharge with superannuation does not equate to retirement; former employees punished by discharge are ineligible for pension benefits due to strict regulatory definitions.

JUDGMENT :

(Biren Vaishnav, J.)

1. This appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent arises out of a judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 01.02.2018. The respondent was the original petitioner before the learned Single Judge. He shall hereinafter be referred to as the petitioner. The appellants shall hereinafter be referred to as the respondent. The petitioner approached this Court by filing Special Civil Application No.18630 of 2011, inter alia praying for quashing of the communications dated 12.01.2011 and 08.10.2011. By the aforesaid communications, on a request for pension made by the petitioner, the respondent – Bank informed the petitioner that he was not entitled to an option vide Pension Circular dated 27.04.2010 as he did not fall within the categories meant for the purposes of that Circular. He was treated to ineligible for another pension option.

2. Before the learned Single Judge it was the case of the petitioner that he was working as a clerk-cum-cashier in the Bank. Pursuant to a show cause notice by an order dated 30.11.1998, the petitioner by virtue of sympathetic considerations of the Bank rather than being dismissed from service, was imposed a punishment of “discharge from service” with superannuation benefits in terms of Clause 19.6 (b) of the Bipartite Settlement. It was the case of the petitioner before the learned Single Judge that having been imposed a penalty of discharge with superannuation benefits on his refunding the provident fund contribution, he was entitled to avail the benefit of option for pension in light of the Circular of the Bank dated 20.09.2010.

3. Relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bank of Baroda v. S.K. Kool (D) Through L.Rs. & Anr., reported in AIR 2014 SC 915, the learned Single Judge held thus :-

10. This Court has considered the submissions of both the sides. It could be seen that initially the petitioner was imposed the punishment of dismissal from service, however, in pursuance to his representation, the final order came to be passed on 30.11.1998, according to which, the punishment has been replaced by 'discharged from service' with superannuation benefits as would be due otherwise without disqualification from future employment in terms of clause 19.6(b) of the Bi-partite settlement.

11. It could be seen that petitioner has been discharged from service under Clause 19.6(b) of Bipartite Settlement. Clause 19.6 was available only in First Bipartite Settlement and is not there either in Sixth or seventh Bipartite Settlement. Clause 19.6 of First Bipartite Settlement is reproduced as under:

19.6 An employee found guilty of gross misconduct may:

(a) Be dismissed without notice; OR

(b) Be warned or censured, or have an adverse remark entered against him; OR

(c) Be fined; OR

(d) Have his increment stopped; OR

(e) Have his misconduct condoned and be merely discharged.

12. From the order dated 30.11.1998, it is apparent that the petitioner has been imposed punishment of dismissal which has been replaced with discharged from service with superannuation benefits as would be due otherwise, without disqualification from future employment in terms of clause 19.6(b) of the Bipartite Settlement. Meaning thereby, the petitioner can be warned or censured or at the most an adverse remarks could have been entered in his service record. This Court is of the considered opinion that once the order of dismissal has been replaced with the order of di