THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI

ORDER:

In this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the order of dismissal from service passed by the respondent bank on 26.06.1995 with covering letter in proceedings No.PER/ER/95/2699, dated 28.08.1995 as ex-facie illegal in view of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of UCO Bank and Others Vs. Rajendra Shankar Shukla, reported in 2018 (14) SCC Page 92 and not releasing the bank’s contribution to provident fund immediately, but releasing it after a lapse of more than 14 years, which has resulted in non- opting for pension by the petitioner which is condonable and rejection of the request as illegal, unjust, contrary to law, arbitrary and unconstitutional and to further declare that the petitioner is entitled for pension with effect from the date of applicability under the UCO Bank Employees Pension Regulations 1995 and to grant all consequential benefits and to pass such other order or orders in the interest of justice.

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are that the petitioner joined the service of the respondent bank as Junior Officer Scale-I on 21.03.1958 and thereafter he was promoted as Officer Scale-II in the year 1970, as Senior Manager Scale-III in the year 1976, as Chief Manager Scale-IV in April, 1985 and as Assistant General Manager Scale- V in April 1987. The petitioner was about to retire from service on 30.06.1993, but the respondent bank issued a charge sheet on 29.06.1993, alleging certain irregularities and the service of the petitioner was extended till the completion of inquiry. The petitioner submitted his detailed explanation denying the charges leveling against him.

3. It is submitted that the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation on 30.06.1993, but his services were extended vide letter dated 29.06.1993 without payment of any salary, but the petitioner paid his contribution to the provident fund vide covering letter No.PER:PF:CLAIM:2264/93, dated 27.07.1993. It is submitted that though the respondent bank possessed inherent power to extend the service of the petitioner till the completion of enquiry, they have no power or authority to impose any punishment after attaining the age of superannuation with retrospective effect.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to Regulation 20(3)(iii) of the respondent bank for this purpose. It is submitted that the respondent bank has passed the order of dismissal from service on 26.06.1995. He placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of UCO Bank and Others Vs. Prabhakar Sadashiv Karvade, [2018 (14) SCC Page 92], wherein it was held that though the regulations provide for continuation of departmental enquiry instituted against the officer employee before his retirement even after his retirement, none of the substantive penalties specified in Regulation 4 of 1979 Regulations, which include dismissal from service, can be imposed on an officer employee after his retirement on attaining the age of superannuation. Thus, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the order of dismissal on 26.06.1995, even though the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation on 30.06.1993, is ex-facie illegal and without jurisdiction and contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court. Thus, according to the him, the said order is liable to be set aside and the petitioner is entitled to pension from the date of his attaining the age of superannuation under the UCO Bank (Employees’) Pension Regulations of 1995 Notification dated

29.09.1995. It is submitted that the petitioner has therefore made representations to the authorities and on 04.01.2016, the respondent bank modified the order of dismissal from service to that of compulsorily retirement from service. It is submitted that the petitioner could not opt for pension as the respondent bank did not release the amount payable to the petitioner by way of ban