The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK Sri Nilamani Padhi W.A. No. 1981 of 2024 …. Mr. Surendra Nath Panda, Advocate Appellant -versus- UCO Bank represented by the 1. Competent Authority & General Manager, UCO Bank, Kilkata 2. The Branch Manager, UCO Bank, Titilagarh, Bolangir …. Respondents Mr. Subrat Mishra, Advocate (For UCO Bank) CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO Order No.
Decision
ORDER 07.08.2024 01. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode. 2. The judgment dated 25.06.2024 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 15143 of 2019 is under challenge in the present Intra-Court appeal whereby the writ application has been dismissed. 3. The appellant was an employee of UCO Bank and he retired as Assistant General Manager, MEU Parliament Street Branch, New Delhi on 01.06.2015. He had put to challenge an order dated 29.01.2018 passed by the competent authority imposing punishment of reduction of one third basic pension for 2 years on proved charge of misconduct against him. The disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him after his retirement. Page 1 of 6 In accordance with Regulation 48 of UCO Bank (Employees’) Pension Regulations, 1995 which reads thus: “48.Recovery of Pecuniary loss caused to the Bank – (1) The Competent Authority may withhold or withdraw a pension or a part thereof, whether permanently or for a specified period, and order recovery from pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the bank if in any departmental or judicial proceedings the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence or criminal breach of trust or forgery or for acts done fraudulently during the period of his service: Provided that the Board shall be consulted before any final orders are passed: Provided further that where a part of pension is withheld or withdrawn the amount of pension drawn by a pensioner shall not be less than the minimum pension payable under these Regulations. Provided also that the departmental proceedings, if instituted while the employee was in service, shall, after the retirement of the employee, be deemed to be proceedings under these Regulations and shall be continued and concluded by the authority by which they were commenced in the same manner as if the employee had continued in service. (2) No departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the employee was in service, shall be instituted in respect of an event which took place more than four years before such institutions: Page 2 of 6 Provided that the disciplinary proceedings so instituted shall be in accordance with the procedure applicable to disciplinary proceedings in relation to the employee during the period of his service. (3) Where the Competent Authority orders recovery of pecuniary loss from the pension, the recovery shall not ordinarily be made at a rate exceeding one-third of the pension admissible on the date of retirement of the employee.” 4. Learned Single Judge after having noticed the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant and the Bank reached a conclusion that the disciplinary proceeding was conducted following the principle of natural justice and the appellant was given due opportunity to defend his case. Learned Single Judge accordingly opined in the impugned judgment that there was no requirement of interference with the finding of facts recorded by the Enquiry Officer which was based on appreciation of evidence. 5. Assailing the impugned judgment, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that the appellant had taken specific stand that no final order for reduction of pension could be passed without consulting the Board of Directors of the Bank. The 2nd proviso of the Regulation 48 of UCO Bank (Employees’) Pension Regulations, 1995 provides that “the Board shall be consulted before any final orders are passed.” He has submitted that the learned Single Judge has not addressed the said stand taken on behalf of the appellant in the writ proceeding. Page 3 of 6 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has not disputed the factual possession that before imposition of punishment of reduction of pension, the Board was not consulted. He has however submitted that the said requirement of consultation with the Board is directory in nature and not mandatory. He has further argued that in any event, the appellant cannot be said to have been prejudiced in the absence of consultation with the Board. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Haryana Financial Corporation and Another vrs. Kailash Chandra Ahuja reported in (2008) 9 SCC 31. 7. After having heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and the Bank, we are of the view that the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Kailash Chandra Ahuja (supra) has no application to address the challenge of the appellant on the ground of non-compliance of the requirement under Regulation 48 of UCO Bank (Employees’) Pension Regulations, 1995 pertaining to consultation with the Board before passing of a final order under the said Regulation. The decision in the case of Kailash Chandra Ahuja (supra) deals with the effect of non-supply of inquiry report and in that background the Supreme Court has held that the charged employee must show that Page 4 of 6 prejudice has been caused to him because of non-supply of the inquiry report. 8. In the present case, the question is as to whether the order passed by the competent authority, imposing punishment of reduction of basic pension can be sustained which has been passed without complying with the requirement of consultation with the Board required under the first proviso to Regulation 48(1) of the Regulations ? 9. On careful scrutiny of the provision under Regulation 48(1) of the Regulations, we are of the definite opinion that the requirement of consultation with the Board is mandatory in nature as is evident from its language itself. The first proviso mandates in no certain terms that the Board shall “be consulted before any final orders are passed under 48(1) of the Regulation.” The order of punishment dated 29.01.2018 having been passed without consultation with the Board, in the Court’s opinion cannot be sustained on the sole ground of absence of consultation with the Board required under the first proviso to Regulation 48(1) of the Regulations. 10. In our view, since the said crucial aspect has not been considered by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment, the same requires interference. The impugned judgment dated 25.06.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 15143 of 2019 is accordingly set Page 5 of 6 aside. The order of punishment dated 29.01.2018 passed by the competent authority imposing order of punishment is also set aside with an observation that the competent authority shall be at liberty to pass an order afresh after consultation with the board as required under the first proviso to Regulation 48(1) of the Regulations. We make it clear that this is the only ground on which we have interfered with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. We do not find any legal infirmity in the other findings recorded by the learned Single Judge on the point of finding of misconduct recorded by the competent authority. 11. We expect that the competent authority shall complete the exercise of consultation with the Board within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of the copy of this order. 12. The writ appeal is accordingly disposed of. 13. There shall be no order as to costs. Chief Justice (Chakradhari Sharan Singh) (Savitri Ratho) Judge puspa Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: PUSPANJALI MOHAPATRA Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court Date: 14-Aug-2024 12:14:50 Page 6 of 6