B.KEMAL PASHA,J. - (1.) Can Exhibit-A3 be treated as an order passed by a higher authority as mentioned in the Proviso to Rule 31 of the Federal Bank (Employees') Pension Rules, 1995, by exercising the discretion conferred on him? 2. Has the Civil Court jurisdiction to entertain a suit of this nature? 3. What should be the guidelines to exercise the discretion under Rule 31 of the Federal Bank (Employees') Pension Rules, 1995?
(2.) The plaintiff was appointed as a Clerk in the Federal Bank Limited in the year 1978. He continued as such till 2003, when he was promoted as an officer. Thereafter, he was working as the Assistant Manager of the Bank. While so, he had allegedly committed criminal breach of trust by unlawfully and illegally crediting an amount of Rs. 49,100/- in his mother-in-law's account at the Bank. Over and above it, he had procured a furniture loan from the Bank to the tune of Rs. 40,000/-, and instead of making that payment directly to the person from whom the furniture were procured, he credited the amount to his mother-in-law's account. The said amounts were later withdrawn by the mother-in-law. He was served with memo of charges detailing the aforesaid two charges. He admitted the said transactions and consequently, he was found guilty in the enquiry and he was dismissed from the service of the Bank.
(3.) As per the Federal Bank Limited (Officers') Service Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as '2002 Rules'), he had opted for Pension Scheme instead of Provident Fund Scheme. Therefore, the employer's contribution to the Provident Fund Scheme would automatically go to the Pension Scheme. If an officer, who opts to continue in the Provident Fund Scheme, even if dismissed for misconduct, fraud or any such similar cause, he is entitled to the employer's contribution after deducting the actual loss, if any, suffered by the Bank at the instance of such an officer.;