Delhi District Court
Sh. Krishan Gopal Goswami vs Punjab National Bank on 8 August, 2013
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHILPI JAIN:
CIVIL JUDGE-7 (CENTRAL) : DELHI
Civil Suit No. : 258/10/02
Unique Case ID No : N.A.
In the matter of:
Sh. Krishan Gopal Goswami
Son of Late Sh. Goswami Gopi Nath
R/o House No. E-15, Radhey Puri
Near Krishana Nagar
Delhi- 110051 .............. Plaintiff
Versus
Punjab National Bank
Through its General Manager
Head Office, 7- Bhikaji Cama Place
Africa Avenue, New Delhi- 110066 ............ Defendant
Date of institution of the Suit : 04.06.2002
Date on which order was reserved : 08.08.2013
Date of decision : 08.08.2013
SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND PAYMENT OF DUES
JUDGMENT :-
1. Vide this Judgment this court shall decide suit for declaration and payment of dues filed by the plaintiff against the defendant on the averments that the plaintiff was appointed as a clerk in June, 1960 in the Punjab & Kashmir Bank Ltd. and he was promoted as Head Clerk in the said bank in the year 1968. Later on The Punjab and Kashmir Bank Ltd. was merged in the new bank of India Ltd. w.e.f. 01.03.1970 and the plaintiff became the employee of the New Bank of India Ltd. on the same terms and conditions. The plaintiff was promoted as a Special Assistant in the year 1972, later on the said Bank was also nationalized and it became known as New Bank of India. The plaintiff was offered promotion as an officer about in the year 1977 but he declined the said promotions on account of his domestic circumstances. The plaintiff was working as a special Astt. in New Bank of India, Tolstoy Marg Branch, New Delhi and Krishan Gopal Goswami Vs. Punjab National Bank 1/24 the said bank was merged in Punjab National Bank w.e.f. 04.09.1993 by the Government of India and all employees of New Bank of India became the employee of Punjab National Bank on the same terms and conditions. In March, 1994 the bank transferred the plaintiff from Tolstoy Marg Branch to its branch at N-46, Connaught Circus, New Delhi and he was working in the said branch as Special Asstt. The plaintiff had unblemished service record for the last 39 years and he was also awarded a reward of Rs. 1,000/- for completing twenty five years of meritorious service in the bank in August, 1994.
2. The practice in Branch office N- 46, Connaught Circus, New Delhi to authenticate the entries and its balances in the ledger was by way of ticking by the checking hands and not by initial/ signatures. This practice was against the rules and circular of the bank.
3. The plaintiff brought this fact to the notice of the Senior Manager that the balances and the entires in the ledgers have not been properly authenticated by checking hands and it was very difficult to pass entries and balance against the said balances and entires which were simply ticked one.
4. The Senior Manager directed plaintiff to send all such ledgers to the Manager Mr. D.L. Chopra and get the same authenticated from him and thereafter proceed further for passing the entires and balances. The plaintiff started sending the ledger to the Manager for authentication. He became annoyed from the plaintiff and started taking revenge against the plaintiff. The Manager started collecting false complaints from the customers against the plaintiff and also started making false complaint to the Senior Manager against the plaintiff. The plaintiff started working strictly according to written circular of the bank and as per rules and told the manager that the ticking practice is against the written circular of the bank and it could lead fraud in the bank and nobody would take Krishan Gopal Goswami Vs. Punjab National Bank 2/24 responsibility as there was no initial in the ledger but the Manager and the Senior manager were not ready to listen to the plaintiff and asked the plaintiff to follow system of working prevailing in the bank branch office N-46, Connaught Circus, New Delhi.
5. The plaintiff also brought this fact to the notice of the Regional Manger on 14.02.1995 pointing out his grievance and irregularities in N-16, Connaught Circus Branch but without any action.
6. Thereafter the Manager and the Senior Manager started giving punishment to the plaintiff and also started deducting salary from his pay while he was working in the branch from 10.45 am to 5.45 pm and they simultaneously deducted leave of those days also. They also gave work of two checking hands to the plaintiff and the plaintiff was doing his duties as per rules and instructions of the bank. Thereafter the Manager suddenly without any cause or reason suspended the plaintiff from the bank on 24.04.1995 and restrained the plaintiff from entering the bank without his permission. Thereafter on 08.07.1995 chargesheet was issued to the plaintiff and before replying the chargesheet, the regional Manager appointed Enquiry Officer on 03.08.1995. With the permission of the court, the plaintiff was allowed to file his reply of the chargesheet to the disciplinary authority which he filed on 02.02.1996. The said reply was not considered.
7. The Regional Manager revoked the suspension of the plaintiff on 13.09.1996 but Enquiry continued. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report to the regional Manager in the year 1999 and thereafter the Regional Manger was letter dated 27.07.1999 proposed to give two punishment.
a) To cancel his Special Assistant allowance, reverted him to a clerk.
b) He will not be entitled to any benefit besides subsistence allowance during the period of suspension, the said punishment was given to the Krishan Gopal Goswami Vs. Punjab National Bank 3/24 plaintiff on 29.09.1999.
8. The plaintiff preferred an appeal to the Deputy General Manager on 26.10.1999 and the same was rejected by him on 13.06.2000. It is submitted that the plaintiff made an application to Appellate Authority that he may be allowed to engage an advocate to argue the appeal but he was not permitted to do so and without hearing the appeal was dismissed.
9. The Appellate Authority, Dy. General Manager has completely overlooked the written circular of the Bank dated 06.06.1995 in which it was clearly stated that all entries and balances in the ledger should be initialed by the checking hands and not by ticking which are against the rules and it could lead to loss/ fraud in the bank. Accordingly to him the standing rules have no meaning or relevance but verbal instructions should be obeyed.
10. The plaintiff had also pointed out that the Enquiry Officer did not give any finding about the tampering of documents by the bank. The bank tampered the documents which were exhibited in the enquiry file in their favour. The documents were found tampered as the photo copies of the said documents supplied to the plaintiff before initiating enquiry proceedings were different. The bank officials added certain words in those documents later on against the plaintiff. The Appellate Authority completely overlooked these documents and did not give any finding in this account.
11. The chargesheet given to the plaintiff was vague and manipulated and the Enquiry Officer also without considering the documents, circular and the evidence on record recommended punishment to the plaintiff. It is submitted that none of the charges leveled against the plaintiff were proved on record. Against the dismissal of the appeal by the Dy. General Manger on 13.06.2000 the plaintiff also made a representation/ review to the Chairman and Managing Director of the defendant on 17.07.2000. The Krishan Gopal Goswami Vs. Punjab National Bank 4/24 plaintiff was retired from the services on superannuation on 30.09.2001 from Nizamuddin Branch of the defendant bank. While the plaintiff was under suspension from defendant branch at N-46, Connaught Circus, New Delhi, he had filled up blank pension form as per rules and submitted the same to the Manager Sh. D.L. Chopra at N-46, Connaught Circus, New Delhi on 25.01.1996 well within time and obtained the receipt from the bank. The plaintiff had also sent his bank pension option to the office of the regional Manager through registered post on 18.01.1996.The bank vide letter dated 31.01.2002 rejected the request of the plaintiff to opt pension at the time of his retirement on the ground that he had not applied for pension within the stipulated time. Thereafter, the plaintiff has filed a civil suit for mandatory injunction against the defendant to grant pension to the plaintiff after his retirement as he had opted pension and filled up necessary forms within time. At the time of retirement on 30.09.2001 the defendant bank did not release the full dues of the plaintiff. The details of which is as under:
a) Two increments of graduation qualification recorded in his service book but was not granted while all other employees were granted similar increment but the case of the plaintiff was pending. The total arrears of increment upto the date of his retirement is about Rs. 30,000/-.
b) Salary of balance leave period proper record of earned leave, sick leave and other leave was not maintained by the bank. Many representations were made by the plaintiff to correct his leave record but it was not done till his retirement. The payment of 393 days leave was not made to the plaintiff till his retirement which comes about rs. 1,31,328.12 p.
c) The first stagnation increment was due and payable to the plaintiff since 01.03.1998 but he was nto granted the said increment w.e.f.
01.03.1999 thus the increment of two years i.e. 24 months has not been paid which comes to Rs. 6,500/- and the arrears of increment from 01.03.1990 to 31.10.1990 for eight months amounting to Rs.
Krishan Gopal Goswami Vs. Punjab National Bank 5/24 2500/- was also not paid.
d) The second stagnation increment was due after three years as per rules and it should have been granted from 01.03.1991 but it was granted w.e.f. 01.03.1993. The arrears of two year sincremetn and officiating allowance and over time allowance for 24 months comes to Rs. 15,377.34p.
e) The third stagnation increment as per rules was due after three years and it should have been granted w.e.f. 0103.1994 but the same was granted w.e.f. 04.04.1996. The increment and officiating allowance and over time of 25 months were not paid which comes to Rs. 19,000/-.
f) The forth stagnation increment as per rules was due from 01.03.1997 but it was released w.e.f. 26.07.2000 the arrears of increments of 28 months has not been paid which comes to Rs. 25,000/-.
g) The fifth stagnation as per rules was due from 01.03.2000 but was not released till his retirement on 30.09.2001 the arrears of 31 months comes to Rs. 20,000/-.
h) The P.F. Loan installments were deducted 44 instead of 40 at the rate of Rs. 515/- per month, the excess amount recovered 4 installments have not been refunded so far which is Rs. 2060/-.
i) The alleged P.F. Loan of Rs. 1000/- was wrongly shown against the plaintiff in the month of April, 1995. The said amount of Rs. 1,000/- with upto date interest amounting to Rs. 7,537.60 is liable to be reimburse/ released to the plaintiff.
j) The PNB all cadre Coop. Thrift & Credit Society Ltd. all dues were recovered from 90% withdrawal of his PF in October, 2000 and account was closed. In sptie of these full deductions of Rs. 9900/- the bank also deducted a sum of Rs. 9970/- again from the pay of the plaintiff in October, 2000. Therefore, this amount of RS. 9970/- is liable to be refunded to the plaintiff which has not been done so far.
k) The plaintiff was illegally suspended while working in Branch Office N-46, Connaught Circus, New Delhi. He was not paid arrears of pay of 12 months. His 50 days earned leave was also not credited in his Krishan Gopal Goswami Vs. Punjab National Bank 6/24 leave account, besides 34 days salary was deducted from his pay and he was also not given officiating allowance and over time allowance while he worked more than full time and even not availed lunch interval in the office during this period. The arrears of salary of 12 months and payments of 50 days earned leave comes to Rs. 97,890.12p.
l) The Housing loan installments of Rs. 4,020/- were deducted from the salary of the plaintiff but the same was not deposited in housing loan account. This amount is liable to be refunded to the plaintiff.
m) While working in resident of Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi the office did not maintain proper leave account of the plaintiff. Even the dates of hearing of Departmental Enquiry were also deducted from casual leave or earn leave of the plaintiff. Even the earn leave of 33 days were not credited per years as per rule and the leave record was tempered too for previous years. The bank illegally deducted salary of 252 days from the date suit of the plaintiff which comes to Rs. 1,75,389.14p.
n) Even while working in branch office at Nizamuddin (west) New Delhi proper leave account of the plaintiff was not maintained. Even the dates of wrong deduction by branch office Kotla Mubarakpur were again deducted by Branch Office Nizamuddin West New Delhi from casual leave or earned leave and from the salary even the earned leave of 33 days per years as per rules were not credited in the leave account of the plaintiff. The bank illegally deducted salary of 201 days from the pay of the plaintiff which comes to Rs. 1,83,686.31/-.
o) At the time of retirement as Special Asstt, gratuity fund has not been paid on special allowance and officiating allowance which comes to Rs. 1,00,000/-.
12. The plaintiff made a number of representations in respect of his above mentioned claims to the defendants and also met the Regional Manager personally and the Regional Manger also deputed one officer from Krishan Gopal Goswami Vs. Punjab National Bank 7/24 Regional office to enquirer about the above said disputes/ claims of the plaintiff. The officer had visited the Brnach Office Nizamuddin, New Delhi and also seen the record of the bank and also took papers from the plaintiff but till date nothing has been done.
13. Thereafter a notice dated 23.03.2002 was served on the defendant requesting the defendant to release the legal dues of the plaintiff within one month but even service of the notice of demand, the defendant did not pay anything to the plaintiff.
14. The plaintiff was illegally suspended and also illegally awarded punishment. Besides the defendant have also intentionally and deliberately not paid the legal dues of the plaintiff at the time of retirement and thereafter also even after making several representations and serving of notice on the defendant.
15. Following relief are prayed:-
a) A decree of declaration in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant declaring the order dated 29.09.1999 passed by disciplinary authority awarding punishment to the plaintiff and order dated 13.06.2000 passed by Dy. General Manger/ Appellate Authority affirming the order of Disciplinary Authority awarding punishment of reducing the plaintiff from Special Assistant to a clerk and deprived him financial benefit during the period of suspension from 24.04.1995 to 13.09.1996 as illegal and arbitrary and the same be set aside.
b) A decree of declaration in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant declaring that the plaintiff is entitled to receive the legal dues of the plaintiff alongwith cost and interest as the same has been illegally withheld by the defendant.
16. In Written Statement filed on behalf of the defendants, following objections were taken:-
1. The plaintiff is a workman cadre employee as defined under Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant if any is an industrial Krishan Gopal Goswami Vs. Punjab National Bank 8/24 dispute as defined under Section 2 (k) of the ID Act, 1947 and hence the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court is barred under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.it is submitted that the service conditions of the workman staff in the banking industry are governed by the provisions of the Sastry Award, Desai Award and various Bipartite Settlements arrived at industry level under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
2. The suit of the plaintiff is barred under the provisions of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
3. The suit of the plaintiff is not properly valued for the purpose of court fees.
17. On merits it is submitted that the posting of a clerk as Head Cashier is not a promotion as the said post is also in the clerical cadre.
18. The plaintiff was working as Special Assistant in the New Bank of India when the said bank was amalgamated with the present defendant bank. However, it is submitted that the post of Spl. Asstt. is in the clerical cadre only.
19. It is further submitted that the plaintiff was under suspension for the period from 24.04.1995 to 13.09.1996 by the defendant.
20. It is submitted that Rs. 1,000/- is paid to all the employees on completion of 25 years of service. The payment of Rs. 1,000/- does not absolve the plaintiff from Disciplinary Action for the alleged misconducts subsequent to the payment of Rs. 1,000/- to him.
21. It is submitted that as per the procedure of the defendant bank for every monitory transaction through check or otherwise the entry is made in the concerned account book on the basis of the cheque/ voucher by the clerk concerned. The voucher/ cheque is placed with the sheet in which the Krishan Gopal Goswami Vs. Punjab National Bank 9/24 said entry is made. Later on during the same day, the officer/ special assistant who is incharge of the seat/ department checks the entries made in the books and in token of the same he initials the entries which are checked by him. In this process, vouchers, are also released. It is submitted that the officer who is incharge of the particular seat/ department is responsible for all the entries made in the books of the defendant bank during the particular day. On the subsequent day, if some other officer/ special assistant works as incharge of the particular seat/ department he shall not be responsible for any wrong done on the preceding day. The plaintiff had been the trouble creater and had always created one problem or other for the defendant bank. The plaintiff was in the habit of not completing the work on the pretext of one reason or other. The plaintiff used to leave the work most of the time. In the routine reshuffling and change of duties, plaintiff was made incharge of saving fund department at its branch office at N Block Connaught Place, new Delhi. The day he was assigned the duties in the saving fund Department, the plaintiff objected the same on the ground that the said seat was heavy seat and he being leader of the Union was not supposed to do much work and thereafter the plaintiff created one problem or the other every day for the defendant and kept on writing letters without any cause or without any rhyme or reason.
22. The plaintiff without any cause of reason, raised the objection that the entry made during the preceding day have not been initialed though he was least concerned with the same at all. The plaintiff could start his work with the entries for the day on which he was in charge of the seat and he could not be held responsible for anything wrong which could have been committed on the previous day. The concerned office staff satisfied the plaintiff by telling him that the initialed the entry in the ticking form only and all the entries had been duly authenticated/ initialed.
23. It is denied that the manager had ever collected any false complaints from Krishan Gopal Goswami Vs. Punjab National Bank 10/24 the customer. In fact the plaintiff was in the habit of misbehaving with the customers and many a times the customers had reported the matter regarding the plaintiff's misbehavior to the defendant.
24. The plaintiff was only adopting the tactics of delaying the work and avoiding his responsibilities. The plaintiff was served upon a chargesheet dated 08.07.1995 for his misconducts.
25. It is submitted that the plaintiff was in the habit of writing letters to various authorities of the defendants on false and concocted stories. However, on receiving the letter dated 14.02.1995 the Regional Manager of the defendant bank had verified the facts from the Branch concerned and found the allegations made under reference dated 14.02.1995 were false. It is respectfully submitted that it is not necessary to reply to each and every letter emanating from the plaintiff, particularly when there is no substance in the same.
26. It is submitted that the senior Manager of the Branch office at N-46, of the defendant bank had issued two letters dated 03.02.1995 and 04.02.1995 advising the plaintiff not to leave his work unfinished and also warned him that the failing to complete the work allotted to him shall be a breach of service contract and the principle of "no work no pay" would be attracted. The plaintiff left his work unfinished on 02.02.1995, 03.02.1995, 04.02.1995, 11.02.1995, 20.04.1995 and 22.04.1995 and thus he did not complete the allotted duties. The plaintiff did not earn the wages for the day in terms of the contract of employment and hence he was not entitled to the wages for the said days and the same were not payable to him. It is further submitted that as regards to the deduction of leave, the plaintiff had absented himself from duty unauthorisedly without prior intimation or sanction of leave on 07.02.1995 and 08.02.1995. The plaintiff visited the branch on 07.02.1995 and 08.02.1995 and insptie of that he did not submit any leave application or gave any information about his availing of Krishan Gopal Goswami Vs. Punjab National Bank 11/24 leave. Since the plaintiff did not earn any wages for the said dates and accordingly there was no question of any wages being deducted. The attitude of the plaintiff reflects approach to the work and towards the institution from where he earns his livelihood. It is submitted that again on 10.02.1995 the plaintiff behaved in a similar fashion and in terms of the bipartite settlement his absence was treated as unauthorised and wages were deducted for the said dates. As regards of giving the work of two checking hands to him the same is specifically denied in view of the fact that the official working on this seat prior to the plaintiff was allotted the following jobs which the official was completing during the normal office hours:
Incharge SF, Bills and Dispatch.
27. As per the office order dated 20.12.1994 the plaintiff was allotted only the following:
Incharge SF and dispatch.
The plaintiff was suspended on the instruction of the disciplinary authority w.e.f. 24.04.1995. However, it is vehemently and specifically denied that the plaintiff was suspended without any cause or reason.
28. The work of the branch was suffering and the work left unfinished by plaintiff on daily basis was being got completed by other officials of the branch beyond their office hours. The plaintiff was repeatedly being instructed in writing to complete the days work allotted to him. The plaintiff without paying any heed to the orders of the superiors of the defendants, continued to disobey in the manner prejudicial to the interest of the bank.
The plaintiff was suspended pending initiation of disciplinary proceedings against him for his above misconduct. It may be clarified that the suspension is neither a punishment nor a change in the employees conditions of service. It is correct that the chargesheet dated 08.07.1995 was issued for the gross misconducts and the plaintiff was advised to Krishan Gopal Goswami Vs. Punjab National Bank 12/24 submit his reply within 7 days of the receipt of the chargesheet. The disciplinary officer who looked into the truth of the charge leveled against the plaintiff.
29. It is submitted that the reply filed by the plaintiff was wholly considered. The plaintiff had earlier also filed a suit being suit No. 394/95 for perpetual and mandatory injunction which he withdrew vide his stated dated 24.01.1997. it is submitted that the suspension was revoked by the defendant bank on 13.09.1996 pending disciplinary action. The revocation of suspension does not itself absolves the plaintiff from the disciplinary action, if the charges are proved against him. Hence the departmental enquiry into the matter of chargesheet dated 08.07.1995 continued after revocation of suspension to look into the truth of the charges leveled against the plaintiff in terms of the chargesheet dated 08.07.1995. It is submitted that when the charges stood proved in the departmental enquiry the said disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of withdrawal; of special allowance upon the plaintiff. It is submitted that under the provisions of para 19.12 (b) of the Bipartite Settlement, the disciplinary authority is required to pass an order as to how the period of suspension is to be treated.
30. The appeal preferred by the plaintiff is rejected by the Appellate Authority by passing a reasoned order. It is further submitted that under the provisions of the Bipartite Settlement, which governed the service conditions of the workmen staff including plaintiff, a workman employee who has been inflicted punishment by the Disciplinary Authority is not required to be given any personal hearing at the time of the consideration of the appeal by the Appellate Authority and such personal hearing is required to be given only where the punishment of dismissal has been inflicted upon a workman employee and that too on such request being made to the Appellate Authority. In the face of this provision of the Bipartite Settlement, there was no question of the plaintiff being allowed Krishan Gopal Goswami Vs. Punjab National Bank 13/24 to engage an advocate to make oral submissions/ personal hearing before the Appellate Authority.
31. It is submitted that as per terms of the employment the plaintiff is bound to obey the written/ verbal instructions issued from time to time by the defendant bank. It is wrong and denied that the appellate authority i.e. deputy General Manager overlooked the written instruction of the records/ documents placed before the enquiry and the submission made by the plaintiff in the appeal and the records also found relevant records. The appellate authority had found no merit to differ with the orders of the disciplinary authority and hence the appeal filed by the plaintiff was dismissed.
32. It is submitted that the charges leveled against the plaintiff were definite and specific and the Enquiry Officer had considered all the documents and evidence and found the charges levied against the plaintiff as proved.
33. It is submitted that there is no provision for review of the order passed by the Appellate Authority by the Chairman & Managing Director of Bank under the provisions of the Bipartite Settlement. It is submitted that as per the records of the defendant's bank he is a matriculate and as such increment of graduation qualification was not awarded to him.
34. It is submitted that the complete record of all kind of leave i.e. sick leave, privilege leave (earned leave) was being maintained by the bank in respect of all employees of the bank including the plaintiff. However, the plaintiff had disputed the grant of additional sick leaves for 90 days which were granted to him on the basis of an affidavit dated 31.01.2001 from the plaintiff. It is pertinent to mention that in the affidavit the plaintiff has not stated any other kind of leave including sick leave and privilege leave (earned leave) which were ever due but not credited. Hence there is no claim for the same. Further, under the provisions of the Bipartite Krishan Gopal Goswami Vs. Punjab National Bank 14/24 Settlement privilege leave accumulated maximum upto 240 days is only to be encashed upon retirement of a workman employee on attaining the age of superannuation.
35. It is submitted that the first stagnation increment was due w.e.f. 01.03.1990 and has been paid from the effective date. It is submitted that the second stagnation increment fell due on 01.03.1993 i.e. after 36 months and was paid with effective date to the plaintiff.
36. It is stated that the third stagnation increment was due w.e.f. 01.04.1996 after taking into account the leave without pay for 35 days. The said stagnation increment was granted w.e,f, 04.04.1996 i.e. notional date and hence no claim there is. The fourth stagnation increment was due on 04.04.1999 but was granted w.e.f. 01.07.2000 after taking into his leave without pay for a period of 105 days during the period of November, 1996 to May, 1999. It is submitted that the fifth stagnation increment was notionally due on 01.07.2002/ 18.07.2002 wheres the plaintiff retired from the bank service on completion of superannuation on 30.09.2001. Hence the fifth stagnation increment is not payable to the plaintiff and the same is not paid.
37. It is submitted that the plaintiff has not given specific details of the loan. However, it is submitted that on 11.03.1992 a sum of RS. 23,600/- only advanced as Provident Fund loan to the plaintiff. Only the principal amount was repayable in 40 installments of Rs. 515/- each and not the entire amount i.e. principal plus interest. The plaintiff had paid 37 installments of Rs. 515/- upto April 1995 and thereafter 6 installments during the half year ending March, 1997. Thus leaving a non - recoverable balance of Rs. 3090/. Thereafter no installment was paid by the plaintiff and total payable amount of Rs. 7537.60 with interest was recovered from Provident Fund dues.
Krishan Gopal Goswami Vs. Punjab National Bank 15/24
38. It is submitted that there was a casting error of Rs. 1,000/- pertaining to March, 1992 which was rectified in April, 1995. The amount of Rs. 7537.60 was recovered in respect of amount detailed in para (h) above and has nothing to do with the amount of Rs. 1,000/- so rectified. The plaintiff has, therefore, no claim.
39. The plaintiff was suspended for the gross misconduct and was therefore entitled to only subsistence allowance payable to him as per banks rules. The plaintiff has therefore, no claim for arrears of pay/ privilege leave during the period of suspension. It is submitted that the plaintiff has not submitted the number of installments/ the period for which the installments have not been deposited in housing loan account. It is submitted that the leave record of the plaintiff was not properly maintained and was tempered. The plaintiff remained on leave on loss of pay for a period of 231 days during the period of his posting at Branch office Kotla Mubarakpur of the defendant bank. It is further submitted that the defendant credited special sick leave of 90 days to his leave account on the basis of an affidavit dated 31.01.2001 from the plaintiff which shows fairness for the defendant.
40. The deduction of salary have been made out in respect of the period the plaintiff remained on leave on loss of pay.
41. The plaintiff was a clerk at the time of retirement and there was no question of any gratuity on special allowance. As per disciplinary authority's order dated 29.09.1999 the special allowance was withdrawn.
42. The plaintiff was suspended for the gross misconduct for which he was served upon a charge sheet dated 08.07.1995. The charges against the plaintiff stood proved in the enquiry.
43. It is prayed that the suit be dismissed with cost.
Krishan Gopal Goswami Vs. Punjab National Bank 16/24
44. In replication filed on behalf of the plaintiff to the Written Statement of the defendant.
Following preliminary objections were taken:
1. The Written Statement filed by the defendant has not been signed, verified and filed by competent and authorised person on behalf of the defendant.
2. It is denied that plaintiff is a workman as defined in Industrial Dispute Act and he cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the Civil Court.
It is denied that the jurisdiction of the Hon'ble Court is barred under Industrial Dispute Act. It is submitted that the plaintiff is a retired from the service of the bank w.e.f 30.09.2001 and now the plaintiff is not a workman cadre employee as defined in Industrial Dispute Act. The provisions of Industrial Dispute Act cannot over ride the Civil right of the plaintiff.
45. It is denied that the posting of a clerk as a Head Cashier is not a promotion as the said post is also int he workman cadre, Clerical and Cashier are separate and sub- cadre of the workman cadre. It is further submitted that the plaintiff was appointed as a clerk in Punjab & Kashmir Bank Ltd. and was posted at its branch office Bhagirath place, Delhi in June, 1960 and he was promoted as Head Clerk in the said bank at its branch office Sadar Bazar, in the year 1968. It is further submitted that the plaintiff was never appointed or posted in any branch as cashier or head cashier in his life time in the defendant bank. It is further submitted that the plaintiff would only be reverted back from the post of Special Assistant to the post of Head Clerk and not the post of clerk. Even after the order dated 29.09.1999 passed by the Disciplinary Authority of the defendant bank continued to take work from the plaintiff as Special Assistant upto his retirement on 30.09.2001 and he was always threated as Special Assistant but he was not paid his dues as Special Assistant.
Krishan Gopal Goswami Vs. Punjab National Bank 17/24
46. It is submitted that the Special Assistant is the last designation in the workman cadre and whenever some Special Assistant is officiated in place of some officer/ accountant and others, he is paid officiating allowance and the defendant Punjab National Bank has been paying this officiating allowance to the plaintiff but since February, 1995 till his retirement on 30.09.2001 the defendant continued to take work from the plaintiff as officiating officer/ accountant and has not paid the officiating allowance to the plaintiff.
47. It is denied that all employees of the bank who had completed 25 years of services in the bank were rewarded Rs. 1,000/- but only those employees were rewarded a sum of Rs. 1,000/- who had completed meritorious and bootless service of 25 years in the bank till August, 1994. It is submitted that the entires in the ledger are initiated by the Special Assistant or the officer who had power to pass the payment. It is further submitted that the Special Assistant in the bank had been empowered to pass the payment. It is further submitted that the Special Assistant in the Bank had been empowered to pass cash payment and deposit to the extent of Rs. 10,000/- which was revised upto Rs. 25,000/- and in the clearing and transfer entries up to Rs. 25,000/- which was revised upto Rs. 50,000/- and beyond the above limits, the officer/ manager were empowered to pass payments and deposits. The concerned person/ officer shall thereafter initial the entires in the ledger and also its balance but this procedure was not being followed in the defendant bank where the Manager was Sh. D.L. Chopra. He only use to tick the entires and balances in the ledger. When those irregularities were brought to the notice of the Manager and the Senior Manager, they became annoyed and asked the plaintiff to follow the procedure what they were doing in the bank. It is further submitted that the plaintiff has also written to this effect to the regional Manger. (South Delhi Region) of the defendant bank. It is further submitted that instead of advising its officer by the higher officers, they started harassing the plaintiff by one way or the other. It is submitted Krishan Gopal Goswami Vs. Punjab National Bank 18/24 that the plaintiff use to sit in the bank even beyond the office hours to complete the work. It is further submitted that the plaintiff use to sit in the bank even beyond the office hours to complete the work. It is further submitted that the Senior Manager and Manager just to harass the plaintiff started giving him the job of the two Special Assistants and they were finding opportunities to punish the plaintiff by one pretext or other.
48. The plaintiff was assigned the duties of two saving funds etc. Department but he was also given the job of dispatch which pertains to another department. It is also submitted that the plaintiff had brought this fact to the notice of the Senior Manager, Incharge of the officers Branch but she also did not pay any attention to the complaint of the plaintiff. It is further submitted that thereafter the plaintiff also wrote to the Regional Manager the plaintiff also wrote to the Regional Manager to this effect but without any result.
49. It is submitted that the plaintiff was not the leader of any Union and he was not the office bearer of any Union for the last more than 22 years. It is correct that Sh. Arun Kumar, Accountant Branch Office N- 46, Connaught Circus, New Delhi and Presidnet of the officers Union and Senior Manager and Manager of that branch and Sh. Vinod Nagar/ Regional Manager (South Delhi Region) and others were issuing their Union Circular and Sh. Arun Kumar President as Management witness gave a wrong and false evidence in the Enquiry and they were colluded against the plaintiff to harm the plaintiff by one way or the other.
50. It is further submitted that on 7/8.2.95 the plaintiff reached his office in time but his attendance register was 'X' Marked before bank time and this tactics was again repeated on 11.02.1995, thereafter, on 11.02.1995 the plaintiff column in the attendance register was first X- Marked and thereafter over the X-Mark while Fluid was put but the plaintiff put his attendance on teh place where while fluid was not being out and this was Krishan Gopal Goswami Vs. Punjab National Bank 19/24 attitude of the Manager of the defendant bank who was not being put and this was the attitude of the Manager of the defendant bank who was trying to involve the plaintiff in false tampering case and a letter dated 11.02.1995 was sent to the Senior Manager of the defendant bank but without any result. The defendant bank illegally deducted the salary as well as leave of these days from the plaintiff's account. It was against the Bipartite Settlement.
51. It is submitted that the plaintiff passed has graduation in music from Pryag Sangeet Samiti, Allahabad on 28.11.1963 and certificate was given to the bank and the same was recorded in his Service record. It is further submitted that as per the history sheet of the plaintiff filed by the defendant in the court in the column- III the academic qualification recorded therein is "B. Music and Metric".
52. It is submitted that the typographically mistake the date of 1st Stagnation increment was due and payable to the plaintiff since 01.03.1988 but wrongly typed as 01.03.1998. Further it was not granted by the defendant w.e.f. 01.03.1988 wrongly typed as 01.03.1999. The defendant bank granted stagnation increment w.e.f. 01.03.1990, thus admittedly the bank did not pay stagnation increment from 01.03.1988 to 28.02.1990 for 24 months which comes to Rs. 6500/-. It is further submitted that the defendant bank granted stagnation that the defendant bank granted stagnation increment w.e.f. 01.11.1990 which was later on corrected vide letter dated 14.09.1992 and was granted w.e.f. 01.03.1990 but the arrears of the increment for the period from 01.03.1990 to 31.10.1990 for 8 months was not paid to the plaintiff. It is submitted that if the graduation increment is granted to the plaintiff, the his stagnation increment falls due on 01.03.1988. The 2nd stagnation increment was due w.e.f. 01.03.1991 but the plaintiff was granted the same w.e.f. 01.03.1993, thus the appears of 2 years has not been paid to the plaintiff.
Krishan Gopal Goswami Vs. Punjab National Bank 20/24
53. It is reasserted that the 3rd stagnation increment was due w.e.f. and not from 01.04.1996 or 04.04.1996.
54. It is reasserted that while working at defendant branch, Kotla Mabarak Pur, 4th stagnation increment falls due w.e.f. 01.03.1997 and not from 01.07.2000 or 26.07.2000, where admittedly department bank not maintained proper leave record and tampered the same. Sub- para (g)of the written statement is denied and that of the pliant is reaffirmed.
55. It is submitted that the PF loan amounting to RS. 20,600/- and not Rs. 23,600/- was to be deducted in 40 monthly installments of Rs. 515/- each. It is further submitted that the defendant bank recovered 44 installments of 515 each from the pay of the plaintiff. Thus the amount of 4 installments is liable to be returned to the plaintiff. It is denied that the plaintiff was liable to pay Rs. 7537.60p as balance amount from the PF loan account.
56. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed by Ld. Predecessor on 24.02.2003:-
1. Whether plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration, injunction and payment of dues as prayed for? OPP.
2. Whether suit of the plaintiff is barred under the provisions of Specific Relief Act? OPD."
3. Relief.
57. On the application of the defendant for framing Additional Issue, the predecessor of the Hon'ble Court vide order dated 08.11.2004 framed following Additional Issue:-
"Whether the jurisdiction of the Civil court is barred under the provisions of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947? OPD."
58. That after hearing both of the parties on the above said preliminary issue Krishan Gopal Goswami Vs. Punjab National Bank 21/24 the predecessor of the Hon'ble court vide order dated 25.10.2005 has decided this issue against the defendant holding that the jurisdiction of the civil court is not barred under the provisions of Industrial Dispute Act.
59. Plaintiff has examined one witness i.e. himself as PW-1, in order to establish his case and he was duly cross- examined by Ld. Counsel for the defendant. Defendant has examined one witness as DW-1, Sh. Ashwani Kumar Sharma. He duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff.
60. I have heard the final arguments of Ld. Counsel for both the parties and perused the record.
61. Issue wise decision of this court is given below:-
62. ISSUE NO. 1.
Whether plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration, injunction and payment of dues as prayed for? OPP.
The onus to prove this issue was on the plaintiff and plaintiff has examined himself as the sole witness in order to discharge his burden of proof. Plaintiff reiterated the contents of the plaint in his affidavit Ex. PX and exhibited various documents as Ex. P-1 to Ex. P-179. Plaintiff was duly cross- examined by Ld. counsel for the defendant wherein he categorically deposed that "It is correct that I was issued a chargesheet but I do not remember the date. It is correct that I participated in the inquiry. I had produced the documentary evidence in the inquiry but no witness was produced by me in the inquiry. (vol.) I had also filed the reply to the inquiry officer as per court order. It is correct that I was given the opportunity to cross- examine the witnesses in the inquiry."
Aforesaid deposition of plaintiff himself reveals that he duly participated in the departmental inquiry and was given opportunity to defend his case Krishan Gopal Goswami Vs. Punjab National Bank 22/24 and he also cross- examined the witnesses in the inquiry. Furthermore, Ex. P-7 i.e. letter dated 01.11.1991 written to plaintiff by the regional manager of the defendant bank reveals that plaintiff was duly given opportunity to present his defence and to engage her defence representative as per provisions of Bipartite Settlement. In order dated 27.07.1999 Ex. P-15 whereby plaintiff was suspended, it is clearly mentioned that plaintiff can avail the facility of personal hearing alongwith his counsel and can give representation against the order imposing penalties. Furthermore, perusal of inquiry court reveals that issues were duly framed, evidence was led and considered and all the four witnesses were duly cross- examined by the plaintiff. Therefore, rules of natural justice were aptly followed in the department inquiry and opportunity of being heard was duly given to the plaintiff. Furthermore, perusal of Ex- P-16 i.e. order dated 29.09.1999 passed by Senior Regional Manager reveals that representation given by the plaintiff was duly considered and dismissed by reasoned order. Ex. P-17 reveals that plaintiff preferred an appeal against the order dated 29.09.1999 to DGM and said appeal was also rejected by the DGM vide order dated 03.06.2000 (Ex. P-19). Perusal of the chargesheet Ex- DW-1/9 as well as inquiry report Ex. DW-1/12 and Ex. P-9, Ex. P-15, Ex. P-16 and Ex. P-19 reveals that department inquiry was conducted as per due procedures after following rules of natural justice. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere in the findings of the departmental authorities. As such, plaintiff is not entitled to the relief claimed. Therefore, this issues is decided in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff.
63. ISSUE NO. 2.
"Whether suit of the plaintiff is barred under the provisions of Specific Relief Act? OPD."
Regarding this issue plaintiff has filed judgment of Supreme Court i.e. Ramendra Kishore Vishwas Vs. State of Tripura & Ors (1999) 1, SCC-
Krishan Gopal Goswami Vs. Punjab National Bank 23/24 472, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that "It is an erroneous view that civil court does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate on an order passed by disciplinary authority, and that only writ petition can be filed after exhausting departmental remedies. Provisions of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 do not ousted the jurisdiction of Civil Courts. It is a different matter to insist that departmental remedies should be exhausted before a person approaches the civil court but it was not proper for the Single Judge of the High Court to hold after five years, while hearing second appeal, that civil court had no jurisdiction. The case should have been decided on merits. The appellant could not be non- suited on the ground that he had failed to take recourse to proceedings under the CCS (CCA) Rule, 1965 against the order of dismissal.
It is also erroneous view that jurisdiction of civil court u/s 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, is also ousted. Service rules neither expressly nor my implication have taken away jurisdiction of civil courts to deal with service matters." In the light of aforesaid Judgment this issues is decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.
64. ISSUE NO. 3.
"Relief"
In view of decision of aforesaid issues, suit of plaintiff is dismissed. Parties to bear their own cost. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT
ON 08th August , 2013 (SHILPI JAIN)
CJ-07 (CENTRAL):DELHI
Krishan Gopal Goswami Vs. Punjab National Bank 24/24