- (1.) THE petitioner, in this petition, is a former Assistant General manager of the respondent-Syndicate Bank (hereinafter referred to as "the Bank" ).
(2.) THE facts of this case are few arid are not in dispute. They may be stated as hereunder: (a) The petitioner, who was originally employed in the Canara banking Corporation Ltd. , now known as Corporation Bank, as an officer, was appointed in the Executive Grade by the respondent-Bank, by means of its order dated 1st of April 1969. The petitioner was born on 30th of September 1932. The age of retirement of an employee of the Bank till May 1998, was 58 years. Therefore, as per the service conditions of the Bank by which the petitioner was governed, the petitioner was to attain the age of superannuation on 12th of September 1990, but in terms of the Explanation given to regulation 19 (1) of the Syndicate Bank Officers' Service Regulations, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as "the Service Regulations"), the petitioner was to retire from service and relinquish his office only on 30th of September 1990 being the end of the month. (b) However, by means of order dated 26th of September 1990, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-D, the petitioner was kept under suspension and retained in service for the purpose of enquiry proposed to be held against him on account of certain charges of misconduct levelled against him. It is useful to extract the relevant portion of the said order, which reads as hereunder: "now, therefore, the undersigned in exercise of the powers conferred upon him under the said Regulations hereby places sri B. Vittal Pai under suspension with immediate effect. It is further ordered that Sri B. Vittal Pai shall not retire or be permitted to retire on his reaching the date of superannuation but shall be retained in the services until the enquiry into the charges/criminal offences is concluded and a final order is passed thereon by the competent authority. During the period of suspension, Sri B. Vittal Pai will be paid subsistence allowance in terms of Reg. No. 14 of Syndicate Bank officer- Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations "1976 upto 3. 09. 1990. However, he is not entitled to any subsistenceallowance in terms of Reg. 14. 4 of the said Regulations, thereafter. " however, on the basis of the enquiry held against the petitioner, order dated 16th of June 1995, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-H, came to be passed wherein the petitioner was found guilty of contributory negligence resulting in breach of Regulation 3 (1) read with Regulation 24 of the Syndicate Bank Officer employees' (conduct) Regulations, 1976, and, therefore, punishment by way of reduction of his Basic Pay by one stage was awarded. Further, a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- being part of the pecuniary loss caused to the Bank due to the negligence on the part of the petitioner, was ordered to be recovered from the amount as may be due to him. (c) The appeal filed by the petitioner challenging the said order having been dismissed, the petitioner has challenged the said order in Writ Petition No. 4513/1998 before this Court and the said petition is still pending consideration. Subsequent to the order Annexure-H passed by the Bank against the petitioner, the Bank had passed another order dated 14th of July 1995, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-J, retiring the petitioner from service with effect from 30th of September 1990. In the said order Annexure-J, the petitioner was also informed that consequent upon the reduction of pay-scale, his reduced pay was fixed at Rs. 5,350/- per month in the time scale of pay and a sum of Rs. 1,00,000-00 the petitioner was made liable to pay to the Bank towards the loss caused to the Bank, would be recovered from the terminal benefits payable to the petitioner. (d) Aggrieved by order Annexure-J notifying that the petitioner has retired from service with effect from 30th of September 1990, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Chirman and Managing director of the Bank and the said appeal came to be rejected by the general Manager of the Bank by his communication dated 31st of october 1995, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-L. Thereafter, the petitioner gave another representation to the General manager of the Bank on 31st of May 1996 requesting the Bank to give him the benefit of 12 years of past service in Canara Banking corporation as qualifying service and also to add the period of service from 1. 10. 1992 to 14. 6. 1995 as qualifying service for the purpose of his monetary retirement benefits. The said request made by the petitioner was turned down by the General Manager of the Bank by his communication dated 30th of August 1996, copy of which has been produced as Annexure-Q. (e) However, during the pendency of disciplinary proceedings, since the petitioner was not paid Subsistence Allowance, the petitioner had approached this Court seeking for a direction to the bank to pay the Subsistence Allowance. This Court, by its order dated 11th of August 1993 made in Writ Petition No. 39667/93, directed the respondent-Bank to pay the Subsistence Allowance to the petitioner from 1. 10. 1990 unto the date of termination of the disciplinary proceedings. It is useful to extract the relevant portion of the direction given by this Court in the order made in the said petition, which reads as hereunder: "under these circumstances, the first respondent is directed to pay Subsistence Allowance to the petitioner from 1. 10. 1990 upto the date of termination of disciplinary proceedings initiated against him. Four weeks' time is granted to the respondent to comply with this order. " pursuant to the direction given by this Court, it is not in dispute that the petitioner was paid Subsistence Allowance from 1st of October 1990 till the termination of the disciplinary proceeding as per order annexure-H.
(3.) IN this petition, the petitioner has called in question the correctness of the order Annexure-J dated 14th of July 1995 wherein the said order in so far as it relates to the direction retiring the petitioner from service with effect from 30th of September 1990 and also, orders Annexure-L dated 31st of October 1995 and Annexure-Q dated 30th of August 1996 wherein the request of the petitioner to treat the period of service from 1st of October 1990 till 14th of june 1995 and the past service of 12 years put in by the petitioner in the Canara Banking Corporation, came to be rejected by the chairman and Managing Director of the Bank. The petitioner has also prayed for a direction to give the benefit of five years of qualifying service for the purpose of pension in terms of Syndicate bank (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as "the Pension Regulations"), if necessary by declaring the second and third proviso given to Regulation 26 of the Pension regulations as null and void. However, during the hearing of this petition, Sri P. S. Rajagopal, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner will not press his prayer for a direction to the. Bank to consider his service from 3rd of August 1956 to 30th of April 1969 rendered by him in Canara Banking Corporation for the purpose of pension. He has also filed a memo on 16th of december 1998 stating that the petitioner does not press his prayer (d) wherein he had sought for a direction to the Bank for payment of revised Subsistence Allowance with effect from 1st of July 1993 and also revised gratuity and leave salary on the basis of revised salary and allowance in terms of Circular dated 19th of July 1995. He submitted that the petitioner may be reserved liberty to seek the , said prayer in a separate Writ Petition. Accordingly, the petitioner was permitted to delete prayer (d) with liberty reserved to the petitioner, if he is so advised, to challenge the same by means of a separate Writ Petition.;