The central legal point established in the judgment is that to constitute 'grave misconduct' under Regulation 43 of the Pension Regulations, the alleged acts must be of a grave nature, and the gravity of the misconduct must be proved in each case.

KULDIP SINGH, J.

1. The petitioner was working as a General Manager with the Oriental Bank of Commerce (in short 'OBC') and superannuated on 30.9.2010, vide order dated 5.7.2010 (Annexure-P-1). After one year of the retirement, the petitioner was served with a chargesheet dated 7.10.2011 (Annexure-P-2). The petitioner challenged the said chargesheet dated 7.10.2011 by way of filing the writ petition i.e. CWP No. 10692 of 2012, titled as A.K. Tangri Versus Oriental Bank of Commerce and others, before this Court. The said writ petition was dismissed on preliminary hearing by this Court, vide order dated 1.11.2012 (Annexure-P-5) and this Court refused to interfere in the said chargesheet dated 7.10.2011 on the ground that the inquiry is already pending. Thereafter, the inquiry officer was appointed and the inquiry was initiated. In the inquiry, charge No. 1 was partly proved and charge No. 2 was proved. The competent authority i.e. the disciplinary authority, Chairman and Managing Director, vide order dated 23.7.2013 (Annexure-P-8), impose a cut of 20% on the monthly pension of the petitioner for a period of two years. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order dated 23.7.2013 (Annexure-P-8). The appellate authority, vide order dated 3.8.2014 (Annexure-P-10), dismissed the said appeal. Further, review before the reviewing authority was dismissed, vide order dated 17.1.2015 (Annexure-P-12). The petitioner has impugned all these orders in the present writ petition, stating that the orders are illegal and not in accordance with Regulation 43 of the Oriental Bank of Commerce (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995, (in short 'Regulations of 1995') and are liable to be quashed. The mandamus has also been sought for grant of full pension to the petitioner without any cut.

2. In the written statement, respondents have taken the stand that under the said Regulations of 1995, the pension is subject to future good conduct and even the past irregularities/discrepancies can be looked into by the bank. It was stated that during the inquiry, full opportunity was given to the petitioner and the order has been passed in accordance with the law. The earlier writ petition of the petitioner challenging the said charge-sheet dated 7.10.2011 was dismissed. It was further stated that the petitioner was found guilty of grave misconduct jeopardizing public funds of over Rs. 80 crores. Respondents justified the inquiry, findings and the orders passed by various authorities.

3. I have heard the learned counsels for both the parties and have also carefully gone through the record.

4. The punishment has been awarded under Regulation 43 of the Regulations of 1995. Regulation 43 of Regulations of 1995, under which action has been taken against the petitioner is reproduced as under :-

“43. Withholding or withdrawal of pension

The competent authority may, by order or in writing, withhold or withdraw a pension or a part thereof, whether permanently or for a specific period, if the pensioner is convicted of a serious crime or criminal breach of trust or forgery or acting fraudulently or is found guilty of grave misconduct ;”

5. Regulation 45 of the Regulations of 1995 is also reproduced as under :-

“45. Pensioner guilty of grave misconduct

In a case not falling under Regulation 44 if the Competent Authority considers that the pensioner is prima facie guilty of grave misconduct, if shall, before passing an order, follow the procedure specified in Oriental Bank of Commerce Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1982 or in Settlement, as the case may be.”

6. The word 'grave misconduct' is defined as under :-

“(b) the expression “grave misconduct” includes the communication or disclosure of any secret official code or password or any sketch, plan, model, article, note, document or information, such as mentioned in Section 5 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923) which was obtained while holding office in the Bank so as to prejudic