A.Susheel Kumar v. 1. The Branch Manage Canara Bank

.....RESPONDENTS Petition Under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith' the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ or order more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamusdirectingthethirdrespondenttoinstructthefirstrespondentto forwardthepensionpaperssubmittedbythepetitionerandconsidertheSame without waiting tl.at fl.e petitioner has not submitted hrs perrrsic,n p:rpers as per the time specified ir -he , circular issued by the second responrlent f ixir- q the period for submission of pension papers by the retired/cRS enrplo,yees which is an unquestioned rigrrt rr an emproyee to have the pension which ha; become right as per the Hont le Acex Court catena Judgments, r.A.NO :1 OF 2025 petition Lrn je- s;ection 'r51 cpc praying that in the orrcumstirnces stated in the affidavit filecl rr r;,ypp6;1 of the petition, the High Cou( rnay, be pleased to set aside the order pass;t:rl in Wp No. 14422 of 2019, Dt: 12t_,2/2.4 a,d restore into the File in the inle'est of justrce_ Counsel for the peititioner : SRI N.MOHAN KRTSHNA Counsel for the Rerspondents : SRt DISHIT BHATTACHAR,JEE The Court made the 1o[owing ORDER i I HON'BLE SRI JI'STICE NAGF'SH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITI ON No. 1.4422 OF 2019 ORD ER: Petitioner is stated to have joined the 2"d respondent bank on 18.03.1985 as Probation Officer' In 1988' for the irregularities alleged to have he was charge-sheeted lgg I when he was working at committed bY him in Mehdipatnam Extension Counter' Hyderabad and was dismissed from service on 19' 1 1 1998' He challenged the said order uidewrit Petition No 13987 of 1999 wherein this Court modified the order of dismissai into CRS b5' order dated 17.O3.2015. It ts stated, Petltloner addressed letter dated 27.Og.2(,lsto the 3'd respondent that he is interested to opt for penslon and requested to send relative papers' but the 3rd respondent replied that since he was a dismissed employee' rs not eligible fqr gratuity and further stated that there was balance of Rs 80,303/- and the same was adjusted towards loan While so, on 03 11 2018' petitioner came to know Circular regarding Penslon' that the bank had issued a Branch from where he was Lherefore, he rushed to Varni dismissed from service and submitted requisite papers to the 1't res$ondent, who did not forward the papers to the 3'd &. I .- \ .-- , 2 respon([e :ll u s time specified in the Circula l rr as rver. He Lherefore : rldressed letter dated 27 .71.2C 8 Lo the 3'd responrte 11 f,rr which, the 4fr respondent replie rl c'tt l'.>- 04.2Ol9 .stating tl a t rzrst date for submission of pension Ap:lict lion was l l .O9 .2O L E :rnd since there is delay, the s;irrrLc cz nnot be considere rl lolv and hence, rejected his rilquest. The 4e responr <: rt litrther stated that the said Circtllar .'r'as tploaded with gt i< elin,--s to submit the Applications frc,m clig ble CRS employee ; u Ln.l the said contents of the Circular ha ve a lso been nodfiecl i.; llut bank's website under 'Retirees IlrrlrLl'. I etitioner again is slra.o(l to have addressed letter dated 21 .O4.2[t 9 to the

3.,i re sr,o rclc r t explaining the delay of 52 da1'r; in su bmitting pensiorr raprrs to the 1"1 respondent wherc there was no informati,;r: lrom Respondents l and 6 wlto ,,rrc actually responsible tl see that the Circular reaches CRli err pkr. ees, but no action hi.:; been taken thereon. Hence, the \\'ril, Peti ion.

2. l'lre 4e respondent filed counto: s;l,ati 1g that petition(tr rvas clismissed from service on 19.11.1998 icr failure to clischar qr: iuties with utmost integriff and ho:restv s, l-rich is I contra\.r:n tiL n of Regulation No. 3(1) read with R,:gulatro r No. 24 of Syndic rtr: Bank Officer Employees' (Conduc t) Regr rlations, 1976 h,: 'raC misused the official position causi:'rg (letr menl to _) I the interests of the bank and exposing the bank to ltnancial risks. It is stated that as per Payment of Gratuity Act' 1972 (for short, 'the Act'), Section 4(6), gratuity of an employee' whose services have been terminated for any act' wilful omission or negligence causing any damage or loss or destruction of property belonging to the employer shall be forfeited to the extent of the damage of loss so caused The gratuity payable to an employee may be wholly or partially forfeited if the services of such employee have been terminated for his riotous or disorderly conduct or any other act of violence on his pa-rt or, if the service of such employee have been terminated for any act which constitutes an offence involving moral turpitude, provided that such offence is committed by him in the course of employment lt is stated' since petitioner wasterminatedforfailuretodischargedutieswithutmost integrity and honesty, he is not eligible for gratuity' It is stated, the Bank issued guidelines though Circular dated \3.O7.2Oi-8 extending another option for CRS the bank, under which, the iast date for pension along with relevant employees of request for submission of annexures was

22.O8.2014. The Circular was uPloaded on

13.O7.2018 with guidelines to submit the APPlication from \ 4 eligible ( iRS employees on or before 22.08.20 8; on eceipt of reprcs( n alilns, the said date was extended Ll) to 1 - 09.2018; [he ba n[ 11r i qently provided reasonable time t: C IIS e rnployees to app v fr: r pension. The bank displayed th( co rter I,s of the Circular ir, Jre notice board of the bank for infortlatt.rn of ex- emplo,v:( s and notified in Bank's website under. Rr.tire's portal, hou,ever, pcritioner was not diligent enough to,rpprlr, fo.pension on Limr, rcn(e. his request / Application dated'.27.1 I 2l)18 was t'tot consi:lt:r:d.

3. lhe Writ Petition, initially, was dismis secl for non prosccr- 1.r:)1r L-.y order of this Court dated 72.72.'.2O2.1, hr \4,ever, it was rcs[cre'] )n 19.O3.2O25 uide order in I_A.No. I o1',2( 25

4. 1,,:arned counsel for petitioner Sri N. Mohan Krishna ,ru I nrits that in Writ petition No. l39tl7 of 2( ) 1 5, this Court r lr a;'1.. observed that there is no actu:l [inan.:ial loss causccl t( i re bank. It held that punishment of di:;mis sal from service is grcssly disproportionate to the miscon<1uct proved, therefor:. tlr,t said punishment was set aside zrnd in is place, punishrtt -r t of compulsory retirement was irnpc,secl hence, petitiont:r i: r:ligible to receive gratuity. Accor<lin61 to learned counsel. I :,rle i,ure of gratuity is not automatic on dis;mrs:;al from selice rrrr,l rr is subject to sub-sections (5) and (6) of S,:ction 4 of the 1()7.2 Art. The act of forfeiture of gratuity i; n,rt ctLvisaged {./ ) as the provisions are silent on the aspect of forfeiture in case of compulsory retirement. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union Bank of India o. C.G. Ajag Babul and Jgotinnag Rag a. Tlrc Field General Manager, Punjab National Bcnk (Civil Appeal No. 6677 of 2015). Learned counsel, as regards the delay in submission of Applicatron for pension, submits that since his client retired from the service of bank, there is no possibility of going through the bank's website on day to day basis, hence, delay cannot be attributed to him. He relied on the judgment of Karnataka High Court in K.G.Krishna Murthg a. Union of India2. He also relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union oJ India a. Tarsern Stngh (Civil Appeal No. 5 15 1-5 152 of 2008).

5. Heard Ms. Swetha and Vishwajit, counsel on behalf of Sri Dishit Bhattacharjee, learned Standing Counsel for respondent bank. They made submissions in the light of the averments in the counter and places reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Calcutta Port Ttust v. Anadi Kumar Drrss. AtR 20 r 8 SC 3792 2002 0 Supreme (Kar) 589 110{4) i scc 617 6 [;rcrt the above pleadings and argurr'enl s rr ade by 6. the respe:tivtr ['arties, with the support of case 1z 'rrr, il is :vident that the . )rr t r )\rersy in this Writ Petition prirrarily is as to rejection o r.t; :>ltcation of petitioner for grant ol pensic r-r as it was not ;t brr i rted in time as specihed in the C 'r'cu ar Uherein guidelines 'urr"t: issued for grant of pension in respect :rf CRS emplovee s I L e main case of petitioner is th at -re 1 reing a 7 . retired e r rkr",rc and out of service of the bank for mrl e than [u.o decirc]cs. oannot be expected to go throlL3h the: bank's website rtr clar to day basis. As is evident from the mat:rial on record, t.l( r(' s r-ro dispute that respondent bank hari pie ':ed the Circular cittt:'1 13.07.2018 with regard to exterding 'r rtion o[ pe nsion li rr (l RS employees of the bank and thc sar lle was uploaderl nrr r l)e same day itself; subsequently, 'ln r:cei 'ing the represent. tilrrts lrom Associate / various indivi'Juzrls t.c extend the pertori -s() its [o enable the eligible CRS empioye':s ,' oflicers to applv I rr Jrt:nsion, it was decided to extend l]re last late for submission cf Applications to 11.09.2018 uide Circule r dated 2l.o8.2olB rrd the same was notified in bank's werbsit:: under Retirees poli'r', however, petitioner was not dilil3ent ell :;ugh to app]y,-f,rr P,:r-rsion on time, hence, the Ap;rlir:rrtior dated 27 .11 .2,)18 r lr cr the date specified therefor, was not r:orl sidered. -ar' 7 In this regard, the judgment relied on by learned counsel for bank in Calcutta Port Tfust's case (supra) is to be seen. In the said judgment, is held as under " Whenever an employer introduces the pension scheme or makes the same applicable to retired employees and gives them opportunity to exercise option, the circular / instructions issued for that purpose should either be communicated to the retirees or made known to them by some reasonable mode. Mere display of such notice / instructions on the notice board of the head office cannot be treated as an intimation thereof to the retired employees / officers, the employer cannot presume that all the retirees have settled in the city where the head ofhce is located. [f the employees belong to the services of the Central Govemment or its agencies / instrumentalities, they are likely to settle in their native places which may be far away from the seat of the Government or head ofhce of the establishment or organisation. The retirees are not expected to frequently travel from their native places to the seat of the Government or head office to know about additional benehts, if any, extended by the government or their establishment / organisation and it is the duty of the employer to adopt a suitable mechanism for communicating the decision to the retired employees so as to enable them to exercise option. This could be done either by publishing notice in the newspaper about which the retirees are told at the time of their retirement or by sending copies of the circulars / lnstructions to the retirees or by sending a copy thereof to the association of the employees ald f or officers with a direction to them to circulate the same among the retirees concerned. Bv takinq advantage of the modern technolosy. the emploY er can also displav the circulars / instructions on a designated website about which prior information is made available to the emDlovees at the time of their retiremen t. I{ one of these modes is not adoDted. the retired emolovees can lesitimatelv have en denied rieht to exercise the oDtion and can complain that seek intervention of the Court.' (emphasis supplied) 1 1 8 liince the bank had placed the Cir<;:rlzr: in .he notice board t1 tfLr: bank and also notified the same in bank s website under R .t ir I --s portal, it cannot be said that p,:til onL- was noL in the k nr: r i 7 informed of the Circular, in r.ieu, of he above judgmr'n l.

8. Ooming to the aspect of responden - bzrnk ,rdjusting gratuit / pitr z ble to petitioner towards loan due t: br nk, duly exercis n 4 tlLt: right to set off is concerned, as pr:r Secti rn 4(6) of the 19 /1 ,\ ct, bank officials are authorised to do ro. The conten tir:,r.r c 1 learned counsel for petitioner ttrrlt t his Court in Writ P( tl ior No. 1398T of 1999 held that thr:re is r o actual financii I Io:;:; caused to the bank, hence, Sectio:r ,l(tr) c I the Act is not rr1 plir::rble in respect of his case, canr)ct be i ccepted. Becaust:, t1' r punishment was modified to that ol cor lpulsory retirem(:n r rr L ich means petitioner was guilty c,j. the al egations levelled a qa i I st him, but the Court was of tlLe rrpin on that puntshr-rr i'l t ( f removal is disproportionate to lhe ailr gations. The HorL'1 ,k, iupreme Court also held that forfeiture of gratuity is not trrtr:rnatic on dismissal from service, ho.,r,evr r, it is subject -o srr:.sections (5) and (6) of Section 4 ,rf ttLe..l.,)72 Act. In Jyotirrnall Ra.g,s case (supra), the Honble Apt:x C:>urt, in the fact:i Lrrc circumstances of the case, held ,hat t h :, act of forfeiturr: lf rg -rrtuily is not envisaged as the provisiotrs ;L .e silent '/' z// 9 in respect of employees who retired compulsorily' Taking cue from the said judgment, learned counsel submits that petitioner is entitled to be paid the gratuity amount. Here, in the instant case, forfeiture of gratuity amount was made to set off the loans obtained by petitioner from the bank. Hence, the said judgment cannot be applied to the facts and circumstances of this case' Though learned counsel has pointed out that petitioner was not put on notice before the gratuity amount was adjusted, he has not produced any material to prove the same' g . ln the light of the above, this Court is of the view that there are no merits in the Writ Petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

11. The Writ Petition is accordingly, dismissed' No Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/.P. GOWRI SHANKAR ISTRAR DEPUW RE SEC OFFICER 1 2 J To SA BS . one cC to SRI N MoHAN KRISHNA, A{v9c9t9 toP.UqL- ^- . il: & i" Siii ijrsriri aHATTACiAnJEE' Advircate toPUCl Two CD CoPies 6 /1':' )-.(i lr ')l ,-| + ? [r .iitl 206 t .:.,,. . -i.-: :.- - .;o HIGH COURT NBK,J DATED:28105t2025 ORDER WP.No.14422 of 2019 DISMISSING THE W.P WITHOUT CO$TS. G)tofl'9 W,V