- (1.) The instant appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent filed by the State Bank of Patiala is directed against the judgment dated 07.02.2011 rendered by the learned Single Judge holding that an employee who has been removed from service would be entitled to pension and other retiral benefits as per Clause 6(b) of the memorandum of settlement signed between the Bank and the writ petitioner-respondent. It would be appropriate to set out the Clause 6 (a) to (d) of the bipartite settlement, which reads as under: "6. An employee found guilty of gross misconduct may :- (a) be dismissed without notice; or (b) be removed from service with superannuation benefits i.e. Pension and/or Provident Fund and Gratuity as would be due otherwise under the Rules or Regulations prevailing at the relevant time and without disqualification from future employment; or (c) be compulsorily retired with superannuation benefits i.e. Pension and/or Provident Fund and Gratuity as would be due otherwise under the Rules or Regulations prevailing at the relevant time and without disqualification from future employment; or (d) be discharged from service with superannuation benefits i.e. Pension and/or Provident Fund and Gratuity as would be due otherwise under the Rules or Regulations prevailing at the relevant time and without disqualification from future employment; or"
(2.) The learned Single Judge interpreted the aforesaid Clause in favour of the writ petitioner-respondent and has held that the Clause clearly provides that removal with superannuation benefits is one of the punishment provided. In other words, on the language of the Clause, the employee is held entitled to superannuation benefits. The view of the learned Single Judge is discernible from the following para of the judgment, which reads as under :- "A reading of the above clause would clearly show that while imposing a penalty of removal from service, the same could be with superannuation benefits i.e. pension and provident fund as would be due otherwise under the rules and regulations prevailing at that time. This is the precise punishment imposed on the petitioner. The punishment is as per the terms, which were agreed to between the parties and this may not be open to be read with any other regulations prevailing at that time. The respondents are apparently not reading the order of punishment correctly. The precise punishment imposed on the petitioner is as per Clause 6(b) of the Bipartite Settlement. Reading the same in a plain and simple language would convey a meaning that removal from service with superannuation benefits is the punishment which could be imposed. Further part of clause (b) only clarifies the benefits, which would be due and to remove any ambiguities, these have been specified specifically to clarify the doubts, which may otherwise have remained as to which all superannuation benefits were required to be paid while removing the person from service. The use of words 'i.e.' after the word 'benefit' and specifying the benefits thereafter which are to be paid would leave no manner of doubt in ones mind that the subsequent part of this clause is only to clarify the superannuation benefits that are to be paid and nothing else. Accordingly, the effective part of the order imposing punishment would be 'removal from service with superannuation benefits'. Then Clause 6(b) has gone on to specify the superannuation benefits that would be payable to the employee and these are pension and/or provident fund and gratuity, as would be due otherwise under the rules and regulations prevailing at the relevant time. To say that the respondents would be entitled to determine if the gratuity would be payable under the rules and regulations or that they are entitled to forfeit the same, would amount to misreading the clause of bipartite settlement under which this punishment has been imposed. The reading of the Clause clearly shows that the gratuity would be payable if one is entitled to the same under the relevant rules and regulations. In my view, need to word the clause in this manner arose only to clarify that there may be cases where punishment of removal from service is imposed at a time when the gratuity otherwise may not be payable to an employee because of his length of service put in by him. It is only to clarify this aspect that this clause has been so worded to say that the superannuation benefits of gratuity would be payable if it is due otherwise under the rules and regulations and not that the respondents would have a right to pass a fresh order deciding about the payment of gratuity on the basis of Payment of Gratuity Act. If this interpretation of this clause is accepted, as is being advanced, it would undo clause 6(b) of the Bipartite Settlement. Positive part of punishment, which can be imposed is the removal order is with superannuation benefits. The remaining part of the clause is only to clarify the superannuation benefits those would be payable. Otherwise, the operative part of the clause and punishment is complete upto the word 'benefit' in the Clause. I am, thus, not inclined to accept the pleas as raised on behalf of the Bank."
(3.) Mr. H.N. Mehtani, learned counsel for the appellant-Bank has argued that the words 'due otherwise under the Rules and Regulations' must be given some meaning and the interpretation also placed by the learned Single Judge would render the aforesaid words as illusory. According to learned counsel, the whole rule would read to mean that an employee can be removed without superannuation benefits, which would be due to him otherwise under the Rules.;