State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S Dena Bank vs R.G.Pareek on 5 August, 2016
Daily Order IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of Decision: 05.08.2016 First Appeal No. 145/2004 (Arising out of the order dated 11.02.2004passed in Complaint Case No. 430/2003 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (Central) Kashmere Gate Delhi) In the matter of: M/s Dena Bank Through its Chairman & Managing Director, Head Office Maker Towers 'E' Cuffe Parade M/s Dena Bank Through the Chief Manager Provident Funds Department Dastur Building Nariman Street Forte, Mumbai-400001 M/s Dena Bank Through its Dy. General Manager Regional Office Karol Bagh, New Delhi .........Appellant Versus Shri R.G.Pareek C-1/52, Mangal Apartments Vasundhara Enclave, Delhi-110096 ..........Respondent CORAM N P KAUSHIK - Member (Judicial) 1. Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes N P KAUSHIK - MEMBER (JUDICIAL) JUDGEMENT
Present appeal is directed against the orders dated 11.02.2004 passed by the Ld. District Forum (Central) Kashmere Gate Delhi. Vide impugned orders Ld. District Forum directed M/s Dena Bank (OP therein) to release the balance amount of provident fund (employees contribution).
Facts in brief of which are relevant for disposing of the present appeal are that the complainant Sh. R.G.Pareek retired from the services of the OP (Dena Bank) on 30.11.2002 on attaining the age of superannuation. While Sh. R.G.Pareek was in service he was issued a show cause notice dated 30.03.2002. The show cause notice invited his reply so as to initiate disciplinary proceedings against him in the event the reply was not satisfactory. Finding the reply not satisfactory, a formal chargesheet dated 17.08.2000 was issued against the delinquent official i.e. the complainant before us. OP not feeling satisfied with the charge sheet dated 17.08.2002, issued addendum show cause notice dated 03.09.2002. It is most important to mention here that while doing so, the OP superseded the earlier charge sheet dated 17.08.2000 and thereby also the earlier show cause notice dated 21.03.2000. No enquiry officer was appointed by the OP in the matter till the date of superannuation of the complainant. Enquiry officer has not been appointed till date. After his retirement, the complainant approached the Ld. District Forum praying for release of employer's contribution towards CPF. It may be mentioned here that the OP had released to the complainant, the employees contribution on 10.12.2002.
Ld. District Forum vide its orders dated 11.02.2004 which is impugned before this Commission, directed the OP to release employees contribution as well in favour of the complainant. Aggrieved against this order, OP filed an appeal in this Commission which was disposed of vide orders dated 07.12.2006. Vide said orders, this Commission upheld the orders of the Ld. District Forum (dated 11.02.2004). This Commission however left the question of the awarding of interest subject to the final decision taken by the OP in the pending disciplinary proceedings. It was observed by this Commission that the disciplinary proceedings would hopefully be completed soon. OP preferred an appeal against the orders of the State Commission (dated 07.12.2006). Hon'ble National Commission vide its interim orders dated 25.07.2008 read with orders dated 18.12.2007 directed for release of employees contribution to CPF (which amounts of Rs. 5,76,741/-) against a personal bond with one surety. It was also observed by the Hon'ble National Commission that the interest amount due and payable by the OP was still lying with the OP.
It is noteworthy here that the complainant immediately after getting the relief from the Ld. District Forum preferred a writ petition in the Hon'ble High Court on 17.03.2004. In the said writ petition, complainant had prayed for quashing the charge sheet dated 23.12.2003 issued by the OP. He had also prayed for the release of all retirement benefits including leave encashment, provident fund and gratuity with 20% interest. While making this prayer, the complainant perhaps became oblivious of the fact that the relief in respect of the provident fund stood already granted to him by the Ld. District Forum. Be that as it may, Hon'ble High Court vide its order dated 17.03.2004 stayed the operation of the memo dated 23.12.2003 and granted liberty to the OP to go ahead with the disciplinary proceedings initiated in pursuance to the earlier charge sheet dated 17/25 August, 2000. At the cost of repetition it may be mentioned here that the OP while issuing the charge sheet dated 2312.2003 had quashed the charges sheet dated 17/25 August, 2000. There was, therefore, no question of continuing with the charge sheet dated 17/25 August, 2000 by the OP.
Coming back to the status of the case, Hon'ble National Commission vide its orders dated 14.09.2011 remanded back the matter to this Commission with the directions to decide it afresh in accordance with law after taking into consideration the pendency of the writ petition in the Hon'ble High Court and the documentary evidence present on record.
As discussed above, in the present scenario OP is unable to go ahead with the charge sheet dated 23.12.2003 whereas the charge sheet dated 17/25 August, 2000 stands superseded by him.
Ld. Counsel for the OP Sh. Sanjeev Gupta Advocate wants this Commission to stay its proceedings till the disposal of the writ petition by the Hon'ble High Court. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the complainant in the year 2000. He retired in the year 2002.Fate of the complainant is still handing fire though a period of 16 years has passed. There is no dispute with the proposition that employees provident fund scheme is a 'service' and employee is a 'consumer' in terms of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. Relevant law had been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Case of Regional Provident Fund Commissionerv. Shiv Kumar Joshi AIR 2000 SC 331.
Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 provides that the remedy under the Act is in addition to the remedy available under any other law. Hon'ble High Court in its writ jurisdiction has also not stayed the proceedings before this Commission. There is now no question of the disciplinary proceedings coming to their logical end. These have died a natural death. Ends of justices require this Commission to adjudicate upon the appeal in question.
OP has laidemphasis on cl. 20.3(III) of Dena Bank (Officers) Service Regulation 1979. The same are reproduced below:
"The concern officer will not receive any pay and/or allowance after the date of superannuation. He will also not be entitled for the payment of retirement benefits till the proceedings are completed and final order is passed thereon except his own contribution to CPF".
"Disciplinary proceedings shall be deemed to be pending against any employee for the purpose of this regulation if he has been placed under suspension or any notice has been issued to him to show cause as to why disciplinary proceedings shall not be instituted against him and will be deemed to be pending until final orders are passed by the Competent Authority."
"The officer against whom the disciplinary proceedings have been initiated will cease to be in service on the date of superannuation but the disciplinary proceedings will continue as if he was in service until the proceedings are concluded and final order is passed in respect thereof. The concerned officer will not receive any pay and/or allowances after the date of superannuation. He will also not be entitled for the payment of retirement benefits till the proceedings are completed and final order is passed thereon except his own contribution to CPF."
Regulations referred to above are framed by the OP and cannot prevail upon the law providing remedy to the complainant under Consumer Protection Act 1986. These regulations are, therefore, of no avail to the OP in the present context. As referred to above, as on date, no disciplinary proceedings are being conducted against the delinquent/complainant. In such a scenario there is no point in waiting for the outcome of the said disciplinary proceedings. For these reasons I am of the considered opinion that the orders of the Ld. District Forum dated 11.02.2004 do not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. Complainant has faced inconvenience, frustration, sadness and anguishes for a period of 6 years and has remained deprived of his leginmate share of employer's contribution to CPF for a period of about six years. The said share was however released to him on 25.07.2008 in pursuance to the Hon'ble National Commission orders dated 18.12.2007. In the circumstances, let the OP pay to the complainant interest @ 12% p.a. on the said amount of Rs. 5,76,741/- w.e.f. 01.01.2003 uptil 18.12.2007. Let this amount be paid to the complainant within a period of thirty days from today failing which interest @ 18% p.a. shall be leviable on the amount accruing after the expiry of the period of thirty days. Appeal is accordingly disposed of.
Copy of the orders be made available to the parties free of costs as per rules and thereafter the file be consigned to Records.
FDR, if any, deposited by the appellant be released as per rules.
(N P KAUSHIK) MEMBER (JUDICIAL)