State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Dena Bank vs R.G. Pareek on 7 December, 2006
IN THE STATE COMMISSION:DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of Decision: 07-12-2006 A-145/2004 (Arising out of Order dated 11-02-2004 passed by the District Consumer Forum (Central), Kashmere Gate, Delhi, in Complaint Case No. 430/2003) 1. M/s. Dena Bank, Through its Chairman & Managing Director, Head Office Maker Towers, E Cuffe Parade, Mumbai 400005. 2. M/s. Dena Bank, through the Chief Manger, Provident Funds Department, Dastur Building, 2nd Floor, 266-Perin, Nariman Point, Forte, Mumbai 400001. 3. M/s. Dena Bank, through its Dy. General Manager, Regional Office, Karol Bagh, New Delhi 110005. . . . Appellants Through Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate Versus Mr. R.G. Pareek, C-1/52, Mangal Apartments, Vasundhara Enclave, Delhi 110096. . . . Respondent Through Mr. Nem Singh, Advocate CORAM: Justice J.D. Kapoor, President Ms. Rumnita Mittal, Member
1. Whether Reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
Justice J.D. Kapoor (Oral)
1. The respondent was employed with the appellant bank and retired on 30-11-2002 on attaining the age of superannuation. He was a member of the Provident Fund Scheme (CPF) of the Bank and had contributed Rs. 5,76,741.19. Under the rules, the bank was required to contribute the same amount under the scheme. However, the appellant only released the amount contributed by the respondent and withheld the remaining 50% balance on the ground that the respondent had committed certain irregularities during his employment for which he was charge-sheeted and, therefore, disentitled himself for the amount contributed by the bank by virtue of Regulation 20.3(iii) of the Dena Bank (Officers) Service Regulation, 1979. Feeling aggrieved the respondent filed the instant complaint before the District Forum.
2. While allowing the complaint, the District Forum, vide impugned Order dated 11-02-2004, found the appellant bank deficient in service in not releasing the full amount and directed it to release the balance amount of the PF representing the employers contribution alongwith interest to be calculated at the rate applicable to the Officers of the bank on their PF accumulated during the relevant period. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant bank has preferred this appeal.
3. Admittedly, the respondent was issued a Show Cause Notice dated 21-03-2000 followed by addendum dated 03-09-2002 for committing certain irregularities while working at Chhatarpur and Najafgarh Road, New Delhi, branch offices, in respect of which disciplinary proceedings were initiated. However, the respondent filed Writ Petition against the disciplinary proceedings before the High Court of Delhi and obtained stay, which is still continuing.
4. Let us see at the first instance the provision of Regulation 20.3(iii) of the Dena Bank (Officers) Service Regulation, 1979 which, inter alia, reads:-
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.
5. As is apparent, the Ld. Counsel for the appellant is deriving strength for withholding its own contribution from the regulation providing that any officer against whom disciplinary proceedings are initiated or pending will not receive any pay and/or allowances, after the date of superannuation and also will not be entitled to the payment of retirement benefits till the proceedings are completed and final order is passed thereon except his own contribution to CPF. Thus, the condition precedent for not releasing the retirement benefits including the contribution made by the bank towards the CPF Account of an employee under the Scheme is that, firstly, that the disciplinary proceedings should have been initiated against the employee and, secondly, that the final order should be passed by the disciplinary authority.
6. In the instant case, the respondent obtained stay from the High Court against the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the bank, which is still continuing and, therefore, it was beyond the powers and competence of the bank to complete the proceedings and pass final orders.
7. The interim order dated 17-03-2004 passed by the High Court is as under:-
Ms. Raavi Birbal accepts notice. Let reply be filed within 4 weeks. In the meanwhile, disciplinary proceedings arising out of the impugned memorandum dated 23-12-2003 shall remain stayed. It is, however, clarified that disciplinary proceedings initiated pursuant to the earlier charge sheet dated 17/25-8-2000 can continue. List on 17-08-2004.
8. It appears that the appellant bank misread the import of the aforesaid order as it was nowhere prevented from continuing with the disciplinary proceedings and passing final order in respect of charge sheet dated 17/25-08-2000. The appellant bank laboured under the misconception and misunderstanding as to the difference between the Show Cause Notice and the Charge Sheet. First Show Cause Notice was issued on 21-03-2000, which was followed by Charge sheet dated 17/25-08-2000. Addendum Show Cause Notice was issued on 03-09-2002 being followed by additional charge sheet. Interestingly, the appellant bank issued a third Show Cause Notice, which is dated 23-12-2003, i.e. after the date of superannuation of the respondent.
9. The aforesaid conspectus of facts shows that the High Court did not prevent the appellant bank from invoking the provisions of Regulation 20.3(iii) referred above or from proceeding with the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the respondent emanating from the Charge sheet dated 17/25-08-2000 and also passing the final order thereon. Had the appellant proceeded in terms of the order of the High Court, it was well within its powers to invoke Regulation 20.3(iii) of the Dena Bank (Officers) Service Regulation, 1979. But it seems that the appellant bank was itself not sure at the initial stage as to what kind of irregularities have been committed by the respondent and, therefore, issued the initial notice dated 21st March, 2000 and so much so even framed charge sheet also after five months or so and it was after framing the charge sheet that it took one year and 6 months to serve the second Show Cause Notice dated 02-09-2002 and framed Charge Sheet dated 23-12-2003. It appears that while framing the second Charge Sheet it again struck the appellant bank that something was missing and it further gave a Show Cause Notice in December,2003 and may be, it might have issued another Charge Sheet.
10. It appears to be a case of witch hunting without being sure as to on which particular charges the appellant bank can take its final decision within a reasonable period and, therefore, the plea raised by the appellants counsel that it did not proceed with the disciplinary proceedings as it was prevented from passing any final order cannot come to its rescue because it was not prevented from proceeding with the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the respondent arising from the Charge sheet dated 17/25-08-2000 and passing the final orders thereon.
11. Had it passed the final order in respect of the Charge Sheet dated 17/25-08-2000, which it was free to pass, it was well within its powers to invoke Regulation 20.3(iii) of Dena Bank (Officers) Service Regulation, 1979 and withhold the contribution made by it towards the CPF Account of the respondent.
12. However, the perusal of the Charge Sheet dated 23-12-2003 shows that this Charge sheet was served in supercession of Charge Sheet dated 17/25-08-2000. It appears that the bank was under the impression that the stay order granted by the High Court was also in respect of the Charge Sheet dated 23-12-2003, which was issued in supercession of the earlier charge sheet dated 17/25-08-2000, against which there was no stay.
13. Thus, at the most, the appellant can be held guilty for deficiency in service in not completing the disciplinary proceedings well in time initially on the Charge Sheet dated 17/25-08-2000 and again on the Charge Sheet dated 20-12-2003, which prompted the respondent to file Writ Petition before the High Court, but it does not mean that the appellant bank can take the benefit of Regulation 20.3(iii) referred above, on the premise that it had issued a fresh amended Charge Sheet dated 20-12-2003 as Regulation 20.3(iii) was only available in respect of a pending Charge Sheet, i.e. during the employment of the employee, and not after his retirement which is very clear and conspicuous from the bare reading of Regulation 20.3(iii).
14. Had the Charge Sheet dated 17/25-08-2000 been superseded by the Charge Sheet dated 23-12-2003, the appellant bank should have obtained clarification from the High Court and also an order that they should not be prevented from proceeding with the disciplinary proceedings initiated on the basis of the amended Charge Sheet dated 23-12-2003 on the premise that Charge Sheet dated 17/25-08-2000 has been superseded and ceased to exist. By not doing so, they disentitled themselves from taking recourse to or invoking Regulation 20.3(iii) as this regulation only applies to the proceedings initiated during employment of an employee and not after the date of his superannuation.
15. Thus, from any aspect we may examine the case, the appellant was not entitled to withhold its contribution made in the account of the respondent. However, in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any force so far as the contention that the appellant was not entitled to invoke Regulation 20.3(iii) in respect of the CPF contributed by it, but in view of the stay of the High Court as well as the pending disciplinary proceedings, we set aside the interest awarded by the District Forum and direct the appellant only to pay the same amount which was contributed by the respondent, i.e. Rupees 5,76,741.19, besides Rs. 25,000/- as compensation and cost of litigation. The question of awarding interest as per rules will be subject to the final decision taken by the appellant in the pending disciplinary proceedings, which, we hope, will be completed in a year or so.
16. Appeal is partly allowed to the aforesaid extent.
17. A copy of the order, as per statutory requirement, be forwarded to the parties and the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to record. FDR/Bank Guarantee, if any, be released forthwith under proper receipt.
(Justice J.D. Kapoor) President (Rumnita Mittal) Member HK