The respondent petitioner was entitled to continue till 31.10.2012, the date of superannuation, and was entitled to 50% of his salary and other emoluments as if he was in service till 31.10.2012 on the balanced principle of no work no pay. The respondent petitioner was found not to be entitled to the benefits of pension/voluntary retirement scheme, as he had availed of the contributory fund scheme.

JUDGMENT :

A.P. Sahi, J.

(Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 13.6.2019 made in W.P.No.11473 of 2004.)

1. This appeal had been initially presented with the cause title of Syndicate Bank, which was permitted to be substituted by the Canara Bank vide our order dated 7.9.2020. The necessary changes in the cause title, therefore, have to be incorporated as per our order dated 7.9.2020.

2. The appellant bank is aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 13.6.2019, whereby the learned Single Judge taking a lenient view of the punishment awarded to the respondent/petitioner, modified it, after quashing the communication dated 29.4.1999, by directing the appellant bank to accept the respondent's letter of resignation dated 1.10.1998 and treat his services to be pensionable. Consequently, all terminal benefits, including pension, were directed to be released after adjusting any of the monetary benefits that may have been received by the respondent/petitioner.

3. The background in which the aforesaid dispute arose emanated from a proceeding whereby the respondent/petitioner had been transferred to the post of Assistant Manager in the Zonal Office at Calcutta from Madras. The respondent petitioner did not comply with the same and having failed to report for duty at Calcutta, a charge sheet was issued to him on 22.5.1995 calling upon him to answer the charges of absence, of exercising undue influence, of not maintaining good conduct and discipline, and ultimately acting in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the bank.

4. The said proceedings culminated in an order of removal dated 23.9.1996 passed by the Disciplinary Authority, against which the respondent petitioner filed an appeal. The Appellate Authority, vide proceedings dated 13.6.1998, found that the charges had been rightly proved and upheld the same, but while considering the proportionality of the punishment, the Appellate Authority passed the following order:

“I observe that the Disciplinary Authority has awarded the penalty which is commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct. However, taking into consideration all the aspects involved in the case, I am inclined to take a lenient view and accordingly, reduce the penalties of 'Removal from service of the Bank with immediate effect; Reduction in basic pay by one stage in time scale of pay with immediate effect; Removal from the service of the bank with immediate effect and Censure' awarded by the Disciplinary Authority vide his proceedings under reference to ' Reduction in basic pay by three stages for a period of two years with further direction that he will not earn increments during the period of reduction and that the reduction will have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay'.

It is further ordered that Shri A.Venkataraman is not entitled for any backwages from the date of his removal from the services of the Bank i.e. 23.9.1996 till he reports for duty at our Zonal Office, Calcutta. His reinstatement comes into effect from the date of his reporting for duty at the place of posting as above within 15 days of receipt of this order. However, regular posting orders will be issued by Zonal Office, Calcutta on or after his joining at Zonal Office, Calcutta separately.

It is also ordered that Shri A.Venkataraman is not entitled for any backwages/consequential benefits during the period between the date of removal and the date of reporting for duty at Zonal Office, Calcutta. The said period shall not be treated as 'break in service' for the purpose of terminal benefits.”

5. The respondent petitioner in spite of this reduction in penalty did not report for duty at the Zonal Office at Calcutta and instead wrote the following letter on 1.10.1998, which is extracted herein under:

“I would like to know whether I am entitled to opt for VRS. If I am entitled for VRS, I would like to prefer VRS and I would go for commutation of 1/3rd of future pension and take rest as monthly pen