IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

212 CWP-16003-2019 DECIDED ON:15.09.2025 RATTAN LAL (SINCE DECEASED) TH. HIS LRS ...PETITIONER VERSUS STATE BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS ....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL Present: Mr. G.S Gopera, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Chandeep Singh, Advocate for respondents No. 1 to 3.

****

SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J

1. Prayer This civil writ petition under Articles 226/227 of Constitution of India has been filed for issuance of the Writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing of the impugned order dated 23.09.2017 (Annexure P-6) passed by Respondent No.2-Regional Manager, SBI, vide which the claim of the petitioner for the grant of pension and other pensionary benefits has been rejected with further prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to release the pension and other pensionary benefits with 18% interest on the delayed payment.

2. Brief Facts The petitioner joined the erstwhile State Bank of Patiala (now merged with the respondent-Bank) as a Waterman on 21.09.1981 and was promoted over time to Head Cashier in May 2002, maintaining an unblemished service record for over 27 years. On 20.12.2008, the petitioner ₹

was asked to explain an alleged embezzlement of 80,000. He clarified that the amount was mistakenly overpaid to a customer, who subsequently returned it and submitted an affidavit confirming the same.

Despite the return of funds and supporting affidavit, the Bank issued a charge sheet dated 20.02.2009. A departmental enquiry was conducted, resulting in the petitioner’s removal from service on 16.08.2009. His appeal was dismissed on 11.09.2009.

The petitioner filed CWP No. 3618 of 2012, which was disposed of on 14.01.2016, granting him liberty to pursue alternative remedies for remaining service and pensionary benefits.

Subsequent representations (dated 18.05.2016 and 26.12.2016)

requesting release of pension and interest on delayed gratuity remained unanswered, leading to the filing of CWP No. 10128 of 2017 and service of legal notice.

The Bank then issued a rejection order dated 23.09.2017, stating ₹

that the petitioner’s Provident Fund (PF) accumulation of 6,66,339.26 was adjusted against alleged outstanding loans.

However, the Bank later issued a No Dues Certificate dated

15.04.2019 confirming all loan accounts had been settled and no amount was outstanding against the petitioner. Hence the present petition.

3. Submissions On behalf of petitioner It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that he rendered over 27 years of unblemished service with the respondent-Bank and was promoted to the post of Head Cashier without any adverse service record. The initiation of disciplinary proceedings arising out of a solitary incident ₹

dated 20.12.2008 pertaining to an inadvertent overpayment of 80,000/-, which was promptly returned by the customer along with a supporting affidavit was unwarranted. He argues that the resultant punishment of removal from service, imposed on 16.08.2009, is grossly disproportionate and unsustainable in law, particularly in the absence of any proven loss to the Bank or dishonest intent on the part of the petitioner. Moreover, the petitioner was neither afforded the opportunity to exercise an option for pension under the applicable scheme nor was he paid his provident fund dues in actual terms, as the same were unilaterally adjusted against alleged loan accounts later acknowledged to be fully settled vide ‘No Dues Certificate’ dated 15.04.2019. The impugned rejection order dated 23.09.2017 is non-speaking, arbitrary, and fails to adjudicate upon the petitioner’s legitimate claim for pension and interest on delayed gratuity. The denial of pensionary benefits, despite similarly situated employees having been granted the same, is discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

Thus, on these ground, the petitioner, seeks appropriate directions for release of pensi