Withdrawal of pension without following principles of natural justice is unjustified. The competent authority must provide an opportunity for the pensioners to respond before taking any adverse decision regarding pension withdrawal.

JUDGMENT :

Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

I.A. Nos. 4361 of 2021; 4363 of 2021; 4360 of 2021 and; 4362 of 2021:

1. All these interlocutory applications have been filed for condoning the delay of 127 days, which has occurred in preferring these appeals.

2. No counter affidavit to the delay condonation application has been filed.

3. Heard the parties.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the statements made in these applications, we are of the view that the appellants were prevented by sufficient cause in preferring these appeals within time.

5. Accordingly, these interlocutory applications are allowed and the delay of 127 days in preferring these appeals, are hereby condoned.

6. With the consent of the parties, the matters have been heard at this stage for final disposal.

L.P.A. No. 09 of 2020; L.P.A. No.07 of 2020; L.P.A. No.08 of 2020 and; L.P.A. No.10 of 2020:

7. All these appeal under clause 10 of the letters patent are directed against the order/judgment dated 19.08.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 1804 of 2018; W.P.(S) No. 1810 of 2018; W.P.(S) No. 1816 of 2018 and; W.P.(S) No. 1766 of 2018, respectively by way of common order by which the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition has quashed the impugned letter as contained in Letter dated 08.08.2017 by which the pension of the writ petitioners have been withdrawn as also for quashing of the order for withholding commutation and pension.

8. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the writ petition which require to be enumerated herein, read as under:

L.P.A. No. 09 of 2020:

The writ petitioner was appointed as Probationary Officer in the Indian Overseas Bank on 17.11.1980. The writ petitioner was issued with a departmental charge-sheet dated 17.07.2000 by the Bank and the disciplinary authority ordered for enquiring into the charges and a departmental proceeding was initiated against the writ petitioner. Simultaneously, the matter was taken up by the CBI for investigation in RC No.21(A)/1994-D against the writ petitioner and in the departmental proceeding, an enquiry report dated 25.11.2002 was submitted by the authority.

After conclusion of the departmental proceeding, punishment vide order dated 07.05.2003 was awarded to the writ petitioner by the Deputy General Manager of reduction in basic pay by five stages in the time scale of pay for a period of one year with further direction that the writ petitioner would not earn increment of pay during the period of such reduction and on the expiry of such period, the reduction would have the effect of postponing the future increment of pay in terms of Regulation 4(f) of the Indian Overseas Bank Officers Employees’ (Discipline and Appeal) Regulation, 1976.

Being aggrieved with the aforesaid order dated 07.05.2003, the writ petitioner preferred a departmental appeal before the appellate authority and the appellate authority vide order dated 13.11.2003 modified the penalty so awarded.

Being aggrieved with the appellate order, the writ petitioner preferred review before the reviewing authority, who rejected the review application vide order dated 07.07.2004. Thereafter, the writ petitioner was paid the salary in terms of the modification so made, till the date of his superannuation, i.e., till 31.07.2013.

The writ petitioner made representation to release the pensionary benefits vide letters dated 02.09.2013, 01.10.2013 and 16.01.2014 but no response was given, as such, an application under the Right to Information Act was made vide application dated 05.03.2014. In response to the said application, the Bank informed the writ petitioner that as the CBI enquiry was pending against him, he had been granted provisional pension withholding commutation and other terminal benefits in terms of Regulation 46 and 47 of the Regulation, 1995 and the release of terminal benefits would be decided after passing of the final order by the Court.

The writ petitioner challenged the same before