- (1.) The writ petition challenges the denial of terminal benefits to an employee in a Bank, who had been proceeded against for certain indiscipline. The order of punishment that was ultimately passed on alleged proof of misconduct attributed to him was that he would, "be removed from service with superannuation benefits" in terms of clause 6(b) of the Memorandum of Settlement on Disciplinary Action Procedure for Workmen dated 10.04.2002 as substituted per provisions of 8 th Bipartite Settlement dated 02.06.2005..........". Clause 6(b) of the settlement is reproduced:- "6. An employee found guilty of misconduct may:- (a) xxx xxx xxx (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."
(2.) The above Rule admits of no doubt in my mind that it provides for a removal with benefit which would be otherwise payable under the Rules. The provision for the expression "otherwise" under the Rules is understood by the Bank as meaning that in terms of clause 22 of the State Bank of Patiala (Employees') Pension Regulations of 1995, the employee would forfeit the entitlement to pension or gratuity. This understanding by a reference to Rule 22 completely annihilates the removal from service with superannuation benefits that Rule 6 extracted above contemplates. Reading clause 6(b) and clause 22 of the Banking Regulations of 1995 together would only mean that a person who would be paid normally the retiral benefits but for the removal from service by way of punishment will still be paid to him if removal is made with specific reference to superannuation benefits. The expression "otherwise due" explains what a person would get if he had not been removed from service. Removal with superannuation benefits must not be read as removal without superannuation benefits. Such a reading will mean a complete violation of the benefit which clause 6 provides for. This is also against the tenor of the punishment that has been issued by the order. If the reading as understood by the Bank were to be made, the order should have been simply a case of one of dismissal, for, that would take care of the rest that the dismissal would have resulted in a removal from service which in turn would have also resulted in forfeiture of the retiral benefits. Any interpretation that brings absurd consequences will have to be eschewed and hence, I would discard such an argument coming from the Bank.
(3.) If the order of punishment assures to an employee a termination from service with the terminal benefits, then it should include every component of terminal benefits. It would also mean that a claim to gratuity cannot also be refused to the petitioner. It is not possible to merely reproduce some provision of the Gratuity Act that disentitles a person to claim gratuity for a person, who has been found guilty of offence of moral turpitude. If such a finding of guilt had resulted in termination simpliciter without reference to issue of terminal benefits, then a forfeiture of gratuity would have been possible. However, if the punishment spelt out that the removal from service was being made with superannuation benefits then that superannuation benefits must be termed to include gratuity as well. All the terminal benefits shall be calculated and released to the petitioner with interest at 7.5% from the date of termination from the service till date of payment within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.;