IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE P.B.BAJANTHRI WRIT PETITION No.36961/2015 (S – DIS) BETWEEN:
Shri K Raviraj Shetty Aged about 67 years s/o late H Raghurama Shetty earlier working as Senior Manager, Middle Management Scale – III, Staff Code No.3074 Vijaya Bank, S R Road Branch Shimoga, now retired and r/a Ram Nivas, Kolkere Post Basrur – 576211 Kundapur Taluk, Udupi Dist. .. Petitioner (By Sri S Vittal Shetty, Advocate) AND 1. Vijaya Bank A body constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1980, having its Head Office at 41/2, M G Road Bangalore – 560 001 Represented by its Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer.
2. The Deputy General Manager Personnel Department (IRD) (Disciplinary Authority) Vijaya Bank, Head Office No.41/2, M G Road Bangalore-560001.
3. The Trustee Vijaya Bank Staff Provident Fund and Pension Division Vijaya Bank, Head Office No.41/2, M G Road Bangalore-560001.
4. Bank of Baroda A body constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 having its Head Office at Baroda Corporate Centre C-26, `G’ Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai- 400051, Represented by its Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer.
5. The General Manager Bank of Baroda Zonal Office, No.72 2nd Floor, Nitesh Lexigton Avenue Brigade Road Bangalore-560001. .. Respondents (amended v/c/o dtd:18.6.2019) (By Sri P Udayashankar Rai, Advocate for R1 to R3) This WP is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the proceedings of the Deputy General Manager, Personnel Department (IRD), of the Bank dtd.24.1.2009 vide Annexure-B, and to quash the charge sheet dated 21.3.2009 issued by the Deputy General Manager, Disciplinary Authority of the Bank, vide Annexure-E, and quash the proceedings dtd.20.7.2010 of the Deputy General manager, Disciplinary Authority of the Bank vide Annexure-F, holding that the Disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner by invoking Regulations 20(e)(B) of Vijaya Bank (Officers) Service Regulations 1982 and withholding the retiral benefits of the petitioner viz. leave encashment, pension, commutation amount on pension, salary and other allowances for the period of suspension, is bad in law, as it is violative of the principles of law upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, against Regulation 20 of the Vijaya Bank (Officers) Service Regulations 1982, Regulation 48(1) of the Vijaya Bank (Employees) Pension Regulations 1995, and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and hence is not sustainable and etc.
This WP coming on for preliminary hearing in `B’ group, this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER In the instant petition, petitioner has questioned the validity of initiation of enquiry and dismissal order. Hence, he has prayed the following reliefs:
a) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing the proceedings of the Deputy General Manager,Personnel (Department (IRD) of the Bankbearing Ref.No.PER/IRD/HBL/294/09 dated 24.1.2009 riginal of which is produced to this writ petition as Annexure-B, and to quash the chargesheet bearing Ref. No.PER:IRD:HBL:VIG:CS:112:2009 dated 21.3.2009 issued by the Deputy General Manager, Disciplinary Authority of Bank, original of which is produced to this writ petition as Exnnre-E, and to quash the proceeding bearing Ref.
No.PER:IRD:HBL:VIG:2569-2010 dated 20.7.2010 of the Deputy General Manager, Disciplinary Authority of the Bank, original of which is produced to this writ petition as Annexure-F, holding that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner by invoking Regulation 20(3)(b) of Vijaya Bank (Officers’) Service Regulations 1982 ad withholding the retiral benefits of the petitioner viz. leave encashment, pension, commutation amount on pension, salary and other allowances for the period of suspension, is bad in law, as it is violative of the principles of law upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, against Regulation 20 of the Vijaya Bank (Officers’) Service Regulations 1982, Regulation 48(1) of the Vijaya Bank (Employees’) Pension Regulations 1995, and violative of articles 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and hence is not sustainable.
b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the management of the Vijaya Bank to pay all the retiral benefits of the petitioner viz. leave encashment, pension with arrears from the date of retirement till date of payment, commutation amount on pension, salary and allowances for the period of suspension, with interest at the rate of 18% per annum on all the said amounts from the date of retirement of the petitioner from the services of the Bank, till date of payment, and further to pay pension on regular basis, as denial of it is violative of the principles of law upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, against Regulation 20 of the Vijaya Bank (Officers’) Service Regulations 1982, Regulation 48(1) of the Vijaya Bank (Employees’) Pension Regulations 1995, and violative of articles 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and hence is not sustainable.
c) direct the contesting respondents to pay the petitioner costs of these proceedings and;
d) to grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case to meet the ends of justice.”
2. Undisputed facts are that the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation and retired from service on 31.1.2009; that the retiral benefits were not settled, whereas respondent-Bank initiated enquiry while invoking under sub-Regulation (3)(b) of Regulation 20 of Regulation called `Vijaya Bank (Officers’) Service Regulations, 1982 (for short Regulations, 1982). The disciplinary proceeding was concluded by imposing penalty of dismissal by order dated 20.7.2010 under Regulation 4(f) of Vijaya Bank Officer Employees (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1981. Thus, petitioner being dissatisfied and aggrieved by the order of dismissal by initiation of enquiry and order of dismissal has presented this writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that having regard to the status of petitioner as on 31.1.2009, the petitioner ceased to be an employee of respondents-Bank on account of attaining the age of superannuation and retired from service on 31.1.2009. The Regulations invoked by the respondents-Bank are not attracted in respect of retired employee. It was further contended that there is no provision for dismissing an employee from retrospective date, that too against a retired employee.
4. On the otherhand, learned counsel for the respondents - Bank vehemently contended that in respect of retired employee/officer, the Vijaya Bank Officers Service Regulations, 1982, are applicable in particularly sub-Regulation 3(b) of Regulation No.20. It was further contended that the petitioner had cause of action on 20.7.2010 since the present writ petition was presented in the month of August, 2015.
5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
6. Having heard the contentions of both the petitioner and respondents, the following issues are required to be considered:
(i) Initiation of enquiry against the retired employee under Vijaya Bank Officer Employees’ (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations 1981 and Vijaya Bank Officer Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations 1981 are applicable or not?
(ii) Is there any delay in questioning the validity of dismissal order or not?
7. Undisputed facts are that the petitioner attained superannuation and retired from service on 31.1.2009, whereas chargesheet was issued on 31.3.2009 while invoking sub-Regulation 3(b) and (c) of Vijaya Bank (Officers’) Service Regulations, 1982 and further invoking Regulations 1981 for the purpose of dismissing the petitioner from retrospective date on 20.7.2010. What is required to be examined is whether Regulations 1982 and Regulations 1981 could be invoked by the Bank against the retired employee. It is necessary to extract applicability clause of Regulations, 1981:
(1) These regulations may be called Vijaya Bank Officer Employee’s (Conduct) Regulations, 1981.
(2) They shall come into force on 1.12.1981.
(3) They shall apply to all Officer employees of the Bank, recruited in India whether working in India or outside India but shall not apply to:-
(i) The Chairman of the Bank;
(ii) The Managing Director of the Bank;
(iii) any wholetime Director, if any;
(iv) those who are in casual employment or paid from the contingencies;
(v) award staff.”
8. Clause 2(1) to (3) of the Vijaya Bank (Officer’s) Service Regulations, 1982 is as follows:
“2. Officers to whom the Regulations apply.
(1) These regulations shall apply to all officers of the Bank and to such other employees of the Bank to whom they may be made applicable by the Competent Authority to the extent and subject to such conditions as such authority may decide.
(2) They shall also apply to officers transferred/posted/deputed outside India except to such extent as may be specifically or generally prescribed by the Competent Authority.
(3) They shall, however, not apply to employees appointed/engaged in any country outside India and permanently serving there.”
9. The aforesaid applicability Clauses are crystal clear that Regulations 1981 and 1982 are applicable to only such of those employees and officers, who are in service, there is no provision for taking action against the retired employee/officer. Therefore, from initiation of enquiry dated 21.3.2009 till conclusion of proceedings dated 20.7.2010 while imposing penalty of dismissal from service is without authority of law. Accordingly, initiation of enquiry and order of dismissal are liable to be set aside.
10. Insofar as the delay is concerned, it is to be noted that even though the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation and retired from service on 31.1.2009, he has not been extended even provisional pension and retiral benefits are not settled. In that regard, he was making correspondence with the respondents-Bank. That apart, the delay may not be hurdle. The action of initiation of proceedings and imposing penalty of dismissal are without authority of law, which would go to the root of the matter. In otherwords, statutory provision did not provide for taking any action against the retired employee/officer.
In view of all these facts and circumstances, Annexure-B dated 24.1.2009 in Ref. No.PER/IRD/HBL/294/09 and Annexure-E dated 21.3.2009 in Ref. No.PER:IRD:HBL:VIG:CS:112:2009 are set aside.
The writ petition is allowed.
The respondents-Bank are hereby directed to settle all the retiral benefits which are due to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. It is made clear that the petitioner is not entitled to interest on arrears from 20.7.2010 to 30.8.2015 and the rest of period, he is entitled to interest at the rate of 8% p.a. The same shall be calculated and disbursed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner at this stage submitted that the suspension period has not been regularized by the respondent-Bank. The concerned Authority is hereby directed to pass appropriate order in regularizing suspension period in accordance with law, within a period of three months.
Sd/-
JUDGE Bkm