Telangana High Court
J Srinivasa Rao, Hyderabad. vs Uco Bank, Kolkata, 3 Otrs. on 25 November, 2022
Author: Surepalli Nanda
Bench: Surepalli Nanda
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
W.P.No. 23711 of 2017
Between:
J.Srinivasa Rao
... Petitioner
And
UCO Bank and others
... Respondents
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 25.11.2022
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers : yes
may be allowed to see the Judgment?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be
marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : yes
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to
see the fair copy of the Judgment? : yes
______________
SUREPALLI NANDA, J
WP_23711_2017
2 SN,J
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
W.P.No. 23711 of 2017
% 25.11.2022
Between:
# J.Srinivasa Rao
..... Petitioner
And
$ UCO Bank and others
.....Respondents
< Gist:
> Head Note:
! Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr. W.B.Srinivas
^Counsel for the Respondents: Standing counsel for
respondents
? Cases Referred:
1. 1973 AIR (SC) 834
2. 2. (2018) - 7 SCC 670
3. (2015) 8 SCC 519
WP_23711_2017
3 SN,J
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
W.P. No. 23711 of 2017
ORDER:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents.
2. This writ petition is filed to issue an appropriate Writ order or direction more particularly, one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent bank and its authorities effecting deduction of 1/3rd pension from the petitioner's pension amount as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, contrary to law and contrary to UCO Bank Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations 1976 and UCO Bank (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995 more particularly Regulation 33 of the same and consequently to direct the respondents to forthwith pay full pension to the petitioner without effecting any deductions with effect from the date of his retirement from service including of payment of all arrears and deducted pension with 12 % interest thereupon.
3) The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows:
WP_23711_2017 4 SN,J
a) The petitioner joined in service as clerk on 21.11.1978 in the respondent Bank and promoted as JMG-I on 01.07.1986. The petitioner was promoted to the post of JMG-
II in the year 2000. While the petitioner was working at Rajahmundry in the cadre of Assistant Manager as Recovery Officer, in the year, 2002, the respondent bank introduced mega cash loans to various customers. As Recovery Officer, the petitioner had no power to sanction loans or capacity to make any decision to process the loan.
b) The petitioner was charged with 8 charges while he was working in the branch at Rajahmundry that he connived with six borrowers for obtaining UCO Mega cash scheme loans for wrongful gain and processed the loans without safeguarding the interests of the bank.
c) The petitioner submitted explanation on 09.09.2003 denying the charges. Inspite of the same, an enquiry was conducted and a report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer on 08.05.2004 imposing punishment of dismissal from service. The petitioner filed objections for the said enquiry proceedings, but the same was not considered.
WP_23711_2017 5 SN,J
d) Against the said enquiry report, the petitioner preferred appeal on 22.07.2004 before the 4th respondent. The appellate authority modified the punishment to compulsory retirement from service. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed W.P.No.13052 of 2007 and the same was allowed on 01.08.2008 to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits.
e) Despite the directions in W.P.No.13052 of 2007, the respondents put the petitioner under suspension and conducted enquiry and the enquiry officer mechanically, without proper application of mind held that charges 1, 4, 5, 6 and 7 were proved and passed an order on 04.08.2009 imposing punishment of compulsory retirement.
f) Assailing the same, the petitioner filed W.P.No.20245 of 2009, and the said writ petition was dismissed on 30.01.2013. Against the same, the petitioner preferred W.A.No.1860 of 2013. The said appeal was allowed on 17.11.2014 setting aside the order of punishment dated 04.08.2009. The 4th respondent again passed punishment order dated 30.05.2015 once again holding that all the charges are proved.
WP_23711_2017 6 SN,J
g) Questioning the order dated 30.05.2015, the petitioner filed W.P.No.26776 of 2015. Pending the said writ petition, the respondents deducted 1/3rd pension without notice or enquiry. Therefore, the present writ petition is filed.
4. The counter filed by the 4th respondent, in brief, is as follows:
a) As per Regulation 33 of UCO Bank (Employees') Pension Regulation, 1995 as amended,, the Competent Authority imposed the penalty as hereunder:
"An employee compulsorily retired from service as a penalty on or after 1st day of November, 1993 in terms of UCO Bank Officer Employees (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976 or awards/settlements may be granted by the authority higher than the authority competent to impose such penalty, pension at a rate not less than two thirds and not more than full pension admissible to him on the date of his compulsory retirement if otherwise he was entitled to such pension on superannuation on that date."
b) As an officer, the petitioner had to discharge duties as was assigned to him by his controlling authority. The petitioner admitted that he had verified two loan applications and processed and recommended for sanction of loans in six WP_23711_2017 7 SN,J cases. The said loans were sanctioned under UCO Mega Cash Scheme.
c) In four loans, salary certificates of the borrowers were signed by the borrowers themselves as drawing and disbursing officer, which cannot be accepted and five certificates do not reveal the salary for the month to which it relates. The enquiry was conducted as per the norms of the respondent bank by giving opportunity to the petitioner. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. PERUSED THE RECORD:
FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE :
5. The petitioner initially joined the respondent Bank as clerk on 21.11.1978. On 01.07.1986 the petitioner was promoted as JMG-I and in the year 2000, the petitioner was promoted to the post of JMG-II. On 02.09.2003 the petitioner was issued charge sheet on certain charges (8 charges) alleging that he failed to discharge duties properly and committed misconduct. On 09.09.2003, the petitioner submitted explanation to the charges, despite of it enquiry was conducted. On 08.05.2004 Enquiry Officer submitted a report proving the charges without conducting proper enquiry WP_23711_2017
8 SN,J and without considering the evidence on record properly. On 07.06.2004 the 2nd respondent issued show cause notice proposing "PUNISHMENT OF DISMISSAL" for each of 8 charges separately, for which the petitioner submitted explanation and objections to the enquiry report. On 28.06.2004, the 2nd respondent imposed different punishments for each charge, highest being "DISMISSAL FROM SERVICE" for charges 3, 4 & 5. On 09.05.2006, the 1st respondent modified the punishment of the 2nd Respondent and uniformly imposed "PUNISHMENT OF COMPULSORY RETIREMENT" for all 8 charges. W.P.No.13052 of 2007 filed by the petitioner questioning the said punishment orders of the 1st and 2nd respondents dated 28.06.2004 and 09.05.2006, was allowed on 01.08.2008 and the respondents were directed to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits, leaving it open to the respondents to continue the proceedings, from the stage of submission of report of the Enquiry Officer.
6. On 24.11.2008, the 2nd Respondent appointed another enquiry officer, who conducted enquiry and submitted a report holding charges 2, 3 and 8 as not proved and WP_23711_2017 9 SN,J remaining charges 1, 4, 5, 6 & 7 as proved. On 04.08.2009, the 1st respondent differed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer in his report dated 24.11.2008 and held all charges as 'proved' and passed a fresh order of punishment dated 04.08.2009 imposing the very same "PUNISHMENT OF COMPULSORY RETIREMENT". The said punishment of compulsory retirement was again challenged by the petitioner vide W.P.No.20245 of 2009 which was dismissed on 03.01.2013. As against the judgment in W.P.No.20245 of 2009, the Petitioner preferred W.A.No.1860 of 2013 and the Division Bench was pleased to allow the writ appeal on 17.11.2013 and set aside the order dated 04.08.2009 of the respondent Bank, leaving it open to the respondent to take necessary steps, in accordance with law.
7. The petitioner got superannuated on 30.04.2015. Inspite of the Orders of the Division Bench in W.A.No.1860 of 2013, the petitioner was not reinstated and not paid any salary from 04.08.2009 and instead of complying with the Orders of the High Court in toto, again an order dated 30.05.2015 was passed imposing "PUNISHMENT OF COMPULSORY RETIREMENT" separately for each and every WP_23711_2017 10 SN,J charge. The said order of retirement was passed subsequent to the petitioner's superannuation dated 30.04.2015.
8. Questioning the said orders dated 30.05.2015 of imposing "PUNISHMENT OF COMPULSORY RETIREMENT"
contrary to the directions of this Court W.P. No. 26776 of 2015 is filed which is pending before the High Court of AP.
The respondents gave Pension Disbursement Orders dated 24.09.2013. Respondents gave revised orders on 26.03.2014 wherein 1/3rd pension is deducted and 2/3rd pension is paid.
The petitioner made a representation on 17.04.2017 and also sent a mail to the respondent authorities, requesting them to pay full pension.
DISCUSSIOIN & CONCLUSION :
9. Vide mail dated 17.04.2017 petitioner had been informed by the respondent authority that the petitioner had been compulsorily retired and Competent Authority had sanctioned 2/3rd pension to the petitioner, hence, the petitioner had been getting 2/3rd pension. The petitioner vide mail dated 17.04.2017 intimated to the respondent UCO Bank that WP_23711_2017 11 SN,J there was no justification in the reduction of 1/3rd pension and further the petitioner made a request to pay full pension at the earliest.
10. UCO Bank Regulation No. 33 Relevant portion is extracted as below:
33. Compulsory Retirement Pension.
(1) An employee compulsorily retired from service as a penalty on or after 1st day of November. 1993 in terms of UCO Bank Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 or awards / settlements may be granted by the authority higher than the authority competent to impose such penalty, pension at a rate not less than two-thirds and not more than full pension admissible to him on the date of his compulsory retirement if otherwise he was entitled to such pension on superannuation on that date (2) whenever in the case of a bank employee if Competent Authority passes an order (whether original, appellate or in exercise of power of review) awarding a pension less that the full compensation pension admissible under these regulations, the Board of Directors shall be consulted before such order is passed.
WP_23711_2017 12 SN,J
11. A bare perusal of the record clearly indicates that the Petitioner was not issued any prior notice as required under the regulations before passing of any order under the Pension Regulation Scheme. Petitioner made an application under Right to Information Act, to the Authority concerned on 06.05.2017 and received a reply to the said letter stating that the pension of the Petitioner had been reduced by 1/3rd on the basis of Board Note. The Petitioner's request to furnish the Board Note was however rejected. There is no order on record passed either by the Disciplinary Authority or the Appellate Authority imposing punishment of withholding of 1/3rd pension of the Petitioner nor the record indicates issuance of any notice to the Petitioner prior to the said reduction of 1/3rd pension.
12. A bare perusal of the Circular instructions of the Respondents dt.30.10.2012, clearly indicates that there cannot be a recovery of penalty when already Compulsory Retirement orders were passed as a punishment and therefore there cannot be second WP_23711_2017 13 SN,J punishment orders in the form of deduction of pension. Relevant extract is as below:-
For Officers-
In case of officer employees, 'recovery of loss' is a Minor Penalty as provided in UCO Bank Officer Employees (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976 as amended.
However, where any penalty other than recovery of loss has already been awarded by the Disciplinary Authority on conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against an Officer employee, the loss cannot be recovered from him by way of an Administrative order or by way of initiating a second RDA for the same irregularities, as in that event the same would be a case of double jeopardy.
13. Para 9 of the Counter affidavit reads as under :
It is submitted that the Disciplinary Authority through order dated 28.06.2004 awarded punishment of dismissal from service to the petitioner herein. In an Appeal filed by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority General Manager (operations-11), the Appellate Authority vide order dated 09.05.2006 modified the punishment from dismissal to that of compulsory retirement from Bank's service. I state that the WP_23711_2017
14 SN,J Petitioner, a pension optee who was compulsorily retired from Bank's service as punishment vide order passed by the General Manager, the Competent Authority under Regulation 33 of UCO Bank (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995 for fixation of Compulsory Retirement Pension is the Executive Director of the Bank.
14. The law laid down in the present judgments given below in identical circumstances is very clear and it indicates that the right to superannuation pension is a right vested in the Government Servant and before that right is prejudicially affected he is entitled to a notice to show cause against the proposed cut, there cannot be any deductions from the pension due to an employee in violation of principles of natural justice. The relevant judgments on the subject issue are hereunder.
15. The Apex Court in Judgment dated 21.09.1972 reported in 1973 AIR (SC) 834 in State of Punjab v K.R.Erry and another observed as under :
"The rule that a party to whose prejudice an order is intended to be passed is entitled to a hearing applies alike to judicial tribunals and bodies of persons invested with authority to adjudicate upon matters involving civil consequences. It is one of the fundamental rules of Our Constitutional set up that every, citizen is protected against exercise of arbitrary WP_23711_2017 15 SN,J authority by the State or its officers. Duty to act judicially would therefore arise from the very nature of the function intended to be performed; it need not be shown to be super-added. If there is power to decide and determine to the prejudice of a person, duty to act judicially is implicit in the exercise of such power. If the essentials of justice be ignored and an order to the prejudice of a person is made the order is nullity. That is a basic concept of the rule of law and importance thereof transcends the significance of a decision in any particular case."
"It is true that the order is administrative in character, but even an administrative order which involves civil consequences as already stated, must be made consistently with the rules of natural justice after informing the first respondent of the case of the State, the evidence in support thereof and after giving an opportunity to the first respondent of being heard and meeting Or explaining the evidence."
It is, therefore, clear that the State in the case of these three officers could not have applied a cut in the pension of the officers without giving them a reasonable opportunity to make their defense. The rule which declares that even an administrative authority has to act fairly after giving an opportunity to the person rights and interests are affected by its decision is no more than an extension of the well-known rule which courts in England had recognised in the 19th century.
In the case before us the officers are being deprived of part of their property by applying a cut to the pension. Therefore, it was quite essential in all fairness and elementary justice that they should have been given reasonable opportunity to show cause against the proposed action. Reference was made on behalf of the State to M. Narasimha v. The State of Mysore([1960] 1 S.C.R.).
16. The Punjab and Haryana High Court in Judgment dated 07.03.2013 in Letters Patent Appeal No.56 of WP_23711_2017 16 SN,J 2012 (O&M) in UCO Bank and others v Anju Mathur observed as under :
"It is clear from the reading of Clause (e) of Regulation 46(1) that gratuity is payable on termination of service after completion of 10 years of service, but it would not be paid when termination has come about by way of punishment. Holding that this clause would not apply in the case of compulsory retirement, the entire discussion is contained in only para 8 of the judgment reads as under:
8. A perusal of above shows that Clause (e) of Regulation 46 above which has been relied upon by learned counsel for the appellants cannot apply to the case of compulsory retirement. Similarly, First Proviso to Regulation 38 clearly shows that on retirement, an officer is entitled to leave encashment. There is no provision for withholding gratuity and leave encashment in the case of compulsory retirement.
In L.N. Gupta (Supra) the Division Bench took note of Single Bench judgment in Ashwani Kumar Sharma (supra) and Another judgment in O.P. Garg vs. UCO Bank and others, CWP-888-2005 decided on 31.7.2007, and decided the matter in the following manner:
"What the petitioner failed to appreciate is that the order which was passed on April 21, 2004 was on the basis of the directions of this Court and after giving the petitioner full opportunity of hearing. No order of compulsory retirement leads to automatic reduction of pension or complete denial of gratuity and provident fund. A cut in pension can only be imposed after the punishing WP_23711_2017 17 SN,J authority has applied its mind on the nature of misconduct. Similarly, denial of gratuity and leave encashment can also be effected but not without conscious application of mind.
In Ashwani Kumar Sharma Versus UCO Bank and others 2006 (4) Services Cases Today, 171, this Court had considered the matter in detail and came to the conclusion that a cut in pension could be imposed but before that the concerned employee deserved to be heard. Similarly, gratuity could also be withheld after a hearing.
17. The High Court of Patna judgment dated 22.02.2016 passed in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15264 of 2015 between Kaushal Kishore Thakur, S/o late Brij Kishore Thakur, v The Indian Bank through CMD, dealing with an identical situation as in the present case, observed as under:
"Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that without going of the compulsory retirement which is the subject matter of another writ petition, as per the relevant statutory provisions, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of leave encashment and even the forfeiture of 1/3rd of his pension is not in accordance with the requirement of law and even the provision of the relevant Regulations. It is submitted that the pension of the petitioner is governed by Rule 33 of the Indian Bank (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995 WP_23711_2017 18 SN,J (hereinafter referred to as the Pension Regulation) which is quoted herein below:
33. Compulsory Retirement Pension
1. An employee compulsorily retired from service as a penalty on or after 1st day of November, 1993 in terms of Indian Bank Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 or awards/settlements may be granted by the authority higher than the authority competent to impose such Penalty, pension at a rate not less than two-thirds and not more than full pension admissible to him on the date of his compulsory retirement, if otherwise he was entitled to such pension on superannuation on that date.
2. Whenever, in the case of a bank employee, the Competent Authority passes an order (whether original, appellate or in exercise of power of review) awarding a pension less than the full compensation pension admissible under these regulations, the Board of Directors shall be consulted before such order is passed.
3. A person granted or awarded under sub- regulation (1) or, as the case may be under sub regulation (2), shall not be less than the amount of rupees three hundred and seventy five per mensem.
He submits that as per Pension Regulation 33 relating to compulsory retirement pension though the Competent Authority has the power to impose penalty but the pension cant be less than 2/3rd and not more than full pension admissible on the date of compulsory retirement. It is submitted that the Bank while passing the order of reduction by 1/3rd of the pension of the petitioner has done so on the ground that the Bank has suffered quantified loss. Learned counsel submits that in the charge there was no quantification of any loss WP_23711_2017 19 SN,J which the Bank had suffered and Patna High Court CWJC No.15264 of 2015 dt.22-02-2016 thus the petitioner had absolutely no opportunity to meet the allegation and relying upon the same an order for forfeiture of 1/3rd of the pension cannot be sustained. It is submitted that neither was the amount mentioned in the memo of charges nor subsequently any details of the same were provided to the petitioner much less giving him an opportunity so as to satisfy the Bank that the charge may not be proper against him. Learned counsel submits that by various decisions it has now been settled that before taking recourse to power under Pension Regulation 33 aforesaid for forfeiture of any portion of the pension, it is incumbent upon the Bank to give details of as well as to quantify the loss which it has suffered and the same should be provided to the delinquent giving him an opportunity to meet the allegation. For such proposition learned counsel has relied upon a Full Bench decision of the Panjab and Haryana High Court in the case of UCO Bank and Others vs. Anju Mathur [Letters Patent Appeal No. 566 of 2012 (O&M)) decided on 7th March, 2013, the relevant being at paragraphs 22 and 23, where guidelines have been given before pension or gratuity can be deducted or withheld of any person and further holding that the loss has to be clearly spelt in the memo of charges itself along with materials to justify such charge. Learned counsel has also relied for the same proposition on a decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of A.N. Puniwala vs Bank of India and Ors: dated 25.04.2007 reported in (2007) 3 GLR 2143, WP_23711_2017 20 SN,J the relevant being at paragraphs 15. 16 and 17. Learned counsel submits that even with regard to leave Patna High Court CWJC No.15264 of 2015 dt 22- 02-2016 encashment, the Courts have held that even in the case of compulsory retirement, the same is payable as per the existing Service Regulations and cannot be denied to a compulsory retiree. For such proposition learned counsel has also relied on the decision of UCO Bank (supra), the relevant being at paragraph 26 as well as in the case of Deepak Sapra vs Punjab National Bank decided on 18.09.2013 of the Delhi High Court (L.P.A. No. 693 of 2013), the relevant being at paragraphs 6 to 10.
Having considered the rival contentions and the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court is in agreement with the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner.
"Though, as per the Pension Regulation the power of the Bank to withhold 1/3rd pension of a delinquent cannot be doubted or curtailed, however, the mode and manner to be adopted by the authority before taking such drastic action which is penal in nature visiting the person with civil consequences, has to be in accordance with law. In the present case in view of the decisions relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner where the Courts have rightly held that the requirement of arriving at a conclusion that the conduct of the delinquent has resulted the Bank with loss, the natural corollary is that the loss has to be quantified and details/materials regarding the WP_23711_2017 21 SN,J same have to be provided to the delinquent along with the Memo of charges so as to give him an effective and meaningful opportunity of hearing. The same not being done in the present case, the order to withhold 1/3rd pension cannot be sustained and is accordingly struck down.
Accordingly, in view of the discussions made hearinabove, the writ petition stands disposed off holding that the petitioner is entitled to full pension as well as payment of leave encashment which shall be computed in accordance with law within four weeks from the date of production of a copy of this order before respondents no. 2 and 3. The payment required to be made pursuant to such computation shall also be so done within the next four weeks."
18. The Himachal Pradesh High Court judgment dated 05.09.2019 passed in L.P.A.No.128 of 2011 between Arun Kumar Sood v Chairman & Managing Director, UCO Bank and others, observed as under:
"4(iii) A careful perusal of Regulation No.33(1), makes it clear that it convers a situation where employee has been compulsory retired by way of imposition of penalty. In such cases, pension has to be fixed not less than 2/3 rd and cannot be more than full pension otherwise admissible to an employee on such date. Regulation No.33(2) mandates that before passing an order of awarding less than full pension, competent WP_23711_2017 22 SN,J authority shall consult the Board of Directors. Regulation No.33(1) and 33 clause 33(2) are to be read co-jointly, as these pertain to a situation where employee is compulsory retired by way of punishment. It is settled law that compulsory retirement can either be simplicitor or by way of punishment, see (2001) 2 SCC 305, titled Bishwanth Prasad Singh v State of Bihar and others. Regulation 33 will have no applicability in cases of compulsory retirement simplicitor as no amount of pension can be withheld in cases of compulsory retirement simplicitor.
4(iv) However, the issue of consultation with Board of Directors will not be of much significance in view of failure on the part of respondents-bank to comply with principles of natural justice before forfeiting 1/3rd pension of petitioner.
What should be the payable pension, will depend upon facts and circumstances of each individual case, which are required to be considered by the competent authority, after giving show cause notice and providing an opportunity of hearing to the affected employee.
The financial loss caused to the bank would also be a relevant factor in this regard. Regulation No.33 may not expressly enshrine principles of natural justice, however, the discretion to determine compulsory retirement pension even under Regulation No.33 cannot be exercised whimsically. It has to be exercised judiciously. The Hon'ble Apex Court in (2004) 2 SCC 447, titled Mangila v State of M.P, has held that even if WP_23711_2017 23 SN,J there are no positive words in the Act or Rules made there under, still principles of natural justice must be read in them unless there is clear mandate to the contrary. There is no contrary provision existing under Regulation 33, for denying the applicability of principles of natural justice.
It would be apt to refer the relevant para of the afore judgment, as under-
10. Even if a statute is silent and there are no positive words in the Act or Rules made thereunder there could be nothing wrong in spelling out the need to hear the parties whose rights and interest are likely to be affected, by the orders that may be passed, and making it a requirement to follow a fair procedure before taking a decision, unless the statute provides otherwise. The principles of natural justice must be read into unoccupied interstices of the statute, unless there is clear mandate to the contrary. No form or procedure should ever be permitted to exclude the presentation of a litigant's defence or stand. Even in the absence of a provision in procedural laws, power inheres in every Tribunal/Court of a judicial or quasi- judicial character, to adopt modalities necessary to achieve requirements of natural justice and fair play to ensure better and proper discharge of their duties.
Procedure is mainly grounded on principles of natural justice irrespective of the extent of its application by express provision in that regard in given situation. It WP_23711_2017 24 SN,J has always been a cherished principle. Where the statute is silent about the observance of the principles of natural justice, such statutory silence is taken to imply compliance with the principles of natural justice where substantial rights of parties are considerably affected. The application of natural justice becomes presumptive, unless found excluded by express words of statute or necessary intendment. (See Swadesi Cotton Mills etc. etc. v. Union of India etc. etc.. AIR 1961 SC 818). Its aim is to secure justice or to prevent miscarriage of justice. Principles of natural justice do not supplant the law, but supplement it. These rules operate only in areas not covered by any law validly made. They are means to an end and not an end in themselves. The principles of natural justice have many facets. Two of them are: notice of the case to be met, and opportunity to explain.
19. In a judgment reported in (2018) - 7 SCC 670, titled Union of India and others Vs Ram Lakhan Sharm & judgment reported in (2015) 8 SCC 519, titled Dharampal Satyapal Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Gauhati and others, it was observed as under:
d) Petitioner has already been retired compulsorily under Disciplinary Regulations. Further forfeiture of 1/3 rd of his pension under pension regulations vests upon him, civil consequences. The forfeiture of any amount of pension has to be only in accordance with law and after following WP_23711_2017 25 SN,J principles of natural justice. There cannot be a blanket order of forfeiture of 1/3rd of pension and grant of minimum prescribed 2/3 rd pension under Regulation No 33.
Opportunity is required to be granted to the petitioner to present his case, only thereafter the discretion under Regulation No.33 can be exercised by the bank in a judicious and fair manner considering all relevant factors. In the instant case, this procedure has not been followed. The respondents-bank have straightway forfeited 1/3 rd of petitioner's pension and allowed him 2/3rd i.e. minimum prescribed pension under Regulation No 33. The action is in violation of principles of natural justice & thus cannot be sustained."
20. On the question of payment of interest this Court opines as follows:
It is apt in this regard to refer to the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in (2003) 3 SCC 40, titled H. Gangahanume Gowda Vs. Karnataka Agro Industries Corpn. Ltd, wherein it was held that there is clear mandate in the provisions of Section 7 of Payment of Gratuity Act, to the employer to pay gratuity within time and to pay interest on delayed payment of gratuity.
21. This Court opines that the principle laid down in the above case applies for payment of delayed pension as well, in view of the fact that retiral benefits are earned by an employee for long and meritorious services rendered by him/her. They are not paid to the employee gratuitously or merely as a matter of boon. It is paid to him/her for his/her dedicated and devoted WP_23711_2017 26 SN,J work. Pension, therefore, can be understood as a form of investment through which an employer invests a sum certain to guarantee periodic payments of that sum to a retired worker or the worker's dependants in the event of their death, hence, there is no escape from concluding that interest on delayed payment of pension is payable to the petitioner herein by the respondent bank.
22. Taking into consideration of the above referred circumstances and the fact that the action of the UCO Bank is in violation of Regulation 33 of the UCO Bank (Employees) Pension Regulations 1995. This Court opines that the action of the Respondents is contrary to the Circular Instructions issued by the 2nd Respondent in Circular dated 30.10.2012 which clearly states that where any penalty has already been awarded in disciplinary proceedings by the Disciplinary Authority against an employee there cannot be any recovery of money from the employee by way of Administrative Order or by initiating 2nd disciplinary proceedings for WP_23711_2017 27 SN,J the same irregularity which would be a case of double jeopardy.
23. This Court is of firm opinion that pension and other retiral benefits are a legal right of the employee and the same cannot be stopped or withheld arbitrarily without any authority of law. This Court opines that the action of the Respondents in effecting and imposing deduction of 1/3rd pension upon the Petitioner without issuing any notice to the petitioner in clear violation of principles of natural justice is illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and contrary to the law and contrary to Regulation 33 of UCO Bank Regulations relating to Compulsory Retirement Pension which clearly indicates that the Board of Directors should be consulted before any order is passed and the Board Note dt. 03.10.2007 referred to in the counter affidavit cannot be relevant because the same pertains to proceedings of the year 2007, whereas the present impugned proceedings relate to the year 2017, so admittedly even as per the counter affidavit the Board of Directors had not been consulted prior to taking the impugned decision and the WP_23711_2017 28 SN,J procedure as contemplated under Regulation 33 has not been followed.
24. Taking into consideration all the above referred facts and circumstances and the law laid down by the Apex Court referred to and discussed above, the writ petition is allowed, holding that the petitioner is entitled for full pension and;
(i) The decision of the respondent-bank forfeiting 1/3rd pension of the petitioner is quashed and set aside.
(ii) Respondent-bank is directed to pay within three months interest @ 6% per annum to the petitioner on the pension amount withheld w.e.f. 30.05.2015 till its actual payment.
However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand dismissed.
_________________ SUREPALLI NANDA, J Date: 25.11.2022 Note : L.R. copy to be marked b/o kvrm