Review courts may correct errors in judgments regarding entitlements without altering substantive rights, ensuring clarity in pensionary benefit calculations.

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by R.SURESH KUMAR, J.)

This review application has been filed seeking to review the order passed by the Division Bench dated 02.02.2022 made in W.A.No.22 of 2020.

2. The respondent herein was the employee of the applicant Bank, against whom, Disciplinary Proceedings were initiated, which ultimately ended in the punishment of “dismissal from service”. Challenging the said punishment, the respondent employee filed a writ petition in W.P.No.57 of 2012, which was decided by the Writ Court by order dated 23.10.2019.

3. In the said order, the Writ Court has found that out of the fourteen charges, some of the charges, which are the main charges, have not been proved, however, charge Nos.4 to 12 and 14, though having been proved, which are only procedural violation or procedural lapses, therefore, for such a procedural lapses, assuming that these charges have been proved against the employee, whether the maximum punishment of “dismissal from service” could be inflicted against him and would be commensurate for the proven charges was the question.

4. When that was considered, the learned Judge of the Writ Court was of the view that it was disproportionate and also shocks the conscience of the Court. Therefore, the Writ Court, by order dated 23.10.2019, has passed the following orders:-

“15. As discussed above, the respondents have not proved the charges leveled against the petitioner and at best, the charges 4 to 12 and 14 can be termed as procedural lapses. For the above reason, the order of dismissal imposed on the petitioner is not valid and in any event, it is shockingly disproportionate to the charges leveled against the petitioner. In view of the above, the judgments relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that this Court is not a Court of appeal and has no power to interfere with punishment imposed by the respondents is not applicable to the facts of the present case.

16. For the above reason, the order of dismissal passed by the 4th respondent confirmed by the respondents 2 and 1 are set aside. The petitioner attained the age of superannuation and therefore, the question of reinstatement does not arise even though the respondents have not proved the charges leveled against the petitioner. The charges 4 to 12 and 14 amounts to procedural lapses on behalf of the petitioner. For the said reason, the petitioner is not entitled to any salary from the date of dismissal till the date of superannuation. The period from 03.02.2003 to 31.03.2013 the date of superannuation shall be counted for terminal benefits as well as for pensionary benefits. The petitioner is not entitled to any salary from the date of dismissal till the date of superannuation, but he is entitled to terminal benefits and pensionary benefits treating the period from 03.02.2003, the date of suspension to 31.03.2013, the date of superannuation as duty period.

17. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to pay all the terminal benefits to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.”

5. Felt aggrieved over the said order passed by the Writ Court, the Bank, that is the present applicant, filed an intra-Court appeal in W.A.No.22 of 2020. The said appeal was decided by the Division Bench of this Court by the order dated 02.02.2022, whereby, the Division Bench has passed the following orders:-

“23. Applying the ratio of these decisions, we are of the view that the bank having proved the d