Telangana High Court
A.Narsing Rao, vs State Bank Of India , on 16 December, 2023
1
*THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
+ W.P.No.4337 OF 2018
% 16--12--2023
# A.Narsing Rao
...Petitioner
vs.
$ State Bank of India and others
... Respondents
!Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri P.V.Venkateswara Rao
^Counsel for Respondents : Sri Alluri Krishnam Raju
<Gist :
>Head Note :
? Cases referred
1. (2014) 11 Supreme Court Cases 684
2. (2003) 3 SCC 605
2
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
HYDERABAD
****
WRIT PETITION No.4337 OF 2018
Between:
A.Narsing Rao
... Petitioner
and
State Bank of India and others
... Respondents
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 16.12.2023
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers
may be allowed to see the Judgments? :
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be
Marked to Law Reporters/Journals? :
3. Whether His Lordship wishes to
see the fair copy of the Judgment? :
____________________________________________
NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J
3
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWARA RAO
WRIT PETITION No.4337 of 2018
ORDER
This writ petition was filed seeking the following relief:
"........ to issue order, direction or writ more suitably WRIT OF MANDAMUS declare the action of the 2nd respondent in rejecting petition submitted by the petitioner for granting compassionate allowance on 06.01.2015 through Lr.F/140390/PPG/38, dt.11.05.2017 of the 2nd respondent is irregular, illegal, arbitrary, not in accordance with and Regulation 31 of the State Bank of Hyderabad Employees Pension Regulations 1995, and violates Art.14 of the Constitution of India and consequently (i) set aside the rejection order for compassionate allowance issued through Lr.F/140390/PPG/38, dt.11.05.2017 by the 2nd respondent;
(ii) direct the 2nd respondent to consider the representation 4 of the petitioner dated 06.01.2015 for grant of compassionate allowance pension and grant compassionate allowance as per Regulation 31 of the State Bank of Hyderabad Employees' Pension Regulations 1995 ......".
2. Heard Sri P.V. Venkateswara Rao, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner and Sri Alluri Krishnam Raju, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents-Bank.
3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
The petitioner joined the then State Bank of Hyderabad as a Typistclerk on 16.09.1975. He was promoted to Scale-I on 01.12.1996 and later transferred to the Hussaini-Alam Branch on 30.03.2001. From 17.07.2003 to 19.12.2003, he worked as Joint Custodian of Security Forms of the Hussaini Alam Branch, along with one G.Bhaskara Rao, Deputy Manager. Subsequently, promoted as Deputy Manager on 01.12.2003. During his tenure as Joint Custodian of Security forms, 18 security forms (D.D. Blank forms) were lost under his custody. Consequently, the 3rd respondent issued orders suspending the petitioner from service vide letter No.G.M.O.S/H/IOC/10236, dated 20.12.2003. Later, the Assistant General Manager (Region- I) called for his explanation vide Lr.No.R.1(H)/Gr.1/5219, dated 5 06.01.2004. Parallelly, a criminal case was filed against him, and the Vigilance Department and Police took him for questioning. Since the petitioner could not give any explanation to the Disciplinary Authority, a chargesheet was issued against him vide Lr.No.DPD/530, dated 26.06.2004. He neither gave any reply to the chargesheet nor attended the enquiry. Based on the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, the disciplinary authority sent a notice calling for his remarks on the proposed action of dismissing him from service vide Lr.No.DPD/1628, dated 11.02.2005. As the petitioner could not submit any reply to the said notice, the disciplinary authority passed orders dismissing him from service with effect from 18.03.2005. Meanwhile, the criminal case was handed over to the C.B.I. and based on the chargesheet filed by the CBI authorities before the Special Court for CBI Cases, the case was numbered as C.C.No.33 of 2007, and the petitioner was convicted on 15.11.2017 for the offences mentioned therein. On appeal, this Court suspended the sentence, and he was enlarged on bail. As a consequence of dismissal from service, the petitioner is not eligible for service pension and gratuity. However, in terms of various types of Pension Schemes available under the State Bank 6 of Hyderabad (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995, the petitioner made a representation dated 06.01.2015 seeking to grant compassionate allowance as per Regulation No.31 of the State Bank of Hyderabad (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995. However, the 2nd respondent rejected the said representation vide proceedings No.F/140390/PPG/38, dated 11.05.2017. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner made a representation to the 2nd respondent through the proper channel on 06.01.2015. On receipt of the petitioner's representation, the respondent office, in the letter dated 07.04.2015, called for service particulars, from the Manager, Hussaini Alam Branch, and the petitioner was asked to appear before the Bank Medical officer Dr.R.P.Mahendra. The said Officer directed the petitioner to undergo a few medical tests, which the petitioner did on 08.06.2015 and submitted the test reports to the 4th respondent. Thereafter, the petitioner filed W.P.No.33135 of 2016 before this Court, seeking a direction to 7 the 2nd respondent to dispose of his representation. This Court disposed of the said writ petition by observing as follows :-
"Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the respondent authorities to take a decision on the claim of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders as warranted by law, duly assigning the reasons in support of the decision and the decision should be communicated to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from a date of receipt of a copy of this order."
5. Since the 2nd respondent had not taken any decision on the representation made by the petitioner, he has approached this Court by way of filing C.C.No.1382 of 2017. Subsequently, the petitioner received a letter Lr.No.F/140390/PPG/38, dated 11.05.2017, issued by the 2nd respondent, rejecting his request for Compassionate Allowance. As a result, this Court closed the said Contempt Case. Aggrieved by the order, dated 11.05.2017, passed by the 2nd respondent rejecting his request for a grant of compassionate allowance, the present writ petition is filed.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled to grant of compassionate allowance as per Regulation 31 of the State Bank of Hyderabad (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995, which reads as follows: - 8
"Regulation 31:
Compassionate Allowance: (1) An employee who is dismissed or removed or terminated from service shall forfeit his pension:
Provided that the authority higher than the authority competent to dismiss or remove or terminate his service May, if:-
i) Such dismissal, removal or termination is on or after the 1st November 1993; and
ii) The case is deserving of special consideration sanction a compassionate allowance not exceeding two-thirds of the pension Which would have been admissible to him on the basis of the qualifying service rendered up to the date of his dismissal, removal or termination.
(2) the compassionate allowance sanctioned under the provision to sub-regulation shall not be less than the amount of minimum pension payable under regulation 35 of these regulations as follows :-
A. Superannuation Pension B. Voluntary retirement pension C. Invalid Pension D. Compassionate Allowance E. Premature retirement pension F. Compulsory retirement pension G. Provisional pension H. Family pension
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the dismissed employees are entitled to compassionate 9 allowance in order to save them from poverty, hunger and death, and the salient features of Compassionate Allowance are as follows :-
a. Such dismissal, removal or termination is on or after 1-11- 1993.
b. Compassionate allowance not exceeding two-thirds of the pension which would have been admissible to him on the basis of qualifying service rendered up to the date of his dismissal, removal or termination. c. The compassionate allowance sanctioned should not be less than the amount of minimum pension.
d. In this case, the commutation shall become absolute on the date of the medical certificate given by the medical officer approved by the bank.
8. While relying upon the aforementioned Regulation, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the employee, who was removed from service, is eligible for compassionate allowance. He also stressed that the petitioner has a vulnerable financial background, which deserves sympathy, failing which the petitioner and his family would be subjected to poverty. He, therefore, prayed this Court to treat the petitioner's case as deserving of special consideration and direct the respondent authorities to pay compassionate allowance to the petitioner. 10
9. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents-Bank filed counter and stated that the Compassionate Allowance cannot be sought as a matter of right. Proviso to Regulation 31 provides for the sanction of compassionate allowance, only if the case is deserved of special consideration and not otherwise. Therefore, it is for the petitioner to demonstrate and satisfy this Court that though his case deserves special consideration for sanction of compassionate allowance, the Competent Authority refused to sanction the same. He further submitted that as there are serious allegations of misappropriation of funds against the petitioner, which resulted in the petitioner's conviction, he is not entitled for grant of compassionate allowance, as a matter of right. Therefore, the respondent authorities have rightly dismissed the petitioner from service.
10. In support of his contention, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-Bank relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in MAHINDER DUTT SHARMA Vs. UNION 11 OF INDIA AND OTHERS 1, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows :-
"14. In our considered view, the determination of a claim based under Rule 41 of the Pension Rules, 1972, will necessarily have to be sieved through an evaluation based on a series of distinct considerations, some of which are illustratively being expressed hereunder:-
(i) Was the act of the delinquent, which resulted in the infliction of the punishment of dismissal or removal from service, an act of moral turpitude? An act of moral turpitude, is an act which has an inherent quality of baseness, vileness or depravity with respect to a concerned person's duty towards another, or to the society in general. In criminal law, the phrase is used generally to describe a conduct which is contrary to community standards of justice, honesty and good morals. Any debauched, degenerate or evil behaviour would fall in this classification.
(ii) Was the act of the delinquent, which resulted in the infliction of the punishment of dismissal or removal from service, an act of dishonesty towards his employer? Such an action of dishonesty would emerge from a behaviour which is untrustworthy, deceitful and insincere, resulting in prejudice to the interest of the employer. This could emerge from an unscrupulous, untrustworthy and crooked behaviour, which aims at cheating the employer. Such an act may or may not be 1 (2014) 11 Supreme Court Cases 684 12 aimed at personal gains. It may be aimed at benefiting a third party, to the prejudice of the employer.
(iii) Was the act of the delinquent, which resulted in the infliction of the punishment of dismissal or removal from service, an act designed for personal gains, from the employer? This would involve acts of corruption, fraud or personal profiteering, through impermissible means by misusing the responsibility bestowed in an employee by an employer. And would include, acts of double dealing or racketeering, or the like. Such an act may or may not be aimed at causing loss to the employer. The benefit of the delinquent, could be at the peril and prejudice of a third party.
(iv) Was the act of the delinquent, which resulted in the infliction of the punishment of dismissal or removal from service, aimed at deliberately harming a third party interest?
Situations hereunder would emerge out of acts of disservice causing damage, loss, prejudice or even anguish to third parties, on account of misuse of the employee's authority to control, regulate or administer activities of third parties. Actions of dealing with similar issues differently, or in an iniquitous manner, by adopting double standards or by foul play, would fall in this category.
(v) Was the act of the delinquent, which resulted in the infliction of the punishment of dismissal or removal from service, otherwise unacceptable, for the conferment of the benefits flowing out of Rule 41 of the Pension Rules, 1972? Illustratively, any action which is considered as depraved, 13 perverted, wicked, treacherous or the like, as would disentitle an employee for such compassionate consideration.
15. While evaluating the claim of a dismissed (or removed from service) employee, for the grant of compassionate allowance, the rule postulates a window for hope, "...if the case is deserving of special consideration...". Where the delinquency leading to punishment, falls in one of the five classifications delineated in the foregoing paragraph, it would ordinarily disentitle an employee from such compassionate consideration. An employee who falls in any of the above five categories, would therefore ordinarily not be a deserving employee, for the grant of compassionate allowance. In a situation like this, the deserving special consideration, will have to be momentous. It is not possible to effectively define the term "deserving special consideration" used in Rule 41 of the Pension Rules, 1972. We shall therefore not endeavour any attempt in the said direction. Circumstances deserving special consideration, would ordinarily be unlimited, keeping in mind unlimited variability of human environment. But surely where the delinquency leveled and proved against the punished employee, does not fall in the realm of misdemeanour illustratively categorized in the foregoing paragraph, it would be easier than otherwise, to extend such benefit to the punished employee, of course, subject to availability of factors of compassionate consideration."
11. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-Bank also relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in 14 REGIONAL MANAGER, U.P.S.R.T.C, ETAWAH AND OTHERS Vs. HOTI LAL AND ANOTHER 2, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows:
"If the charged employee holds a position of trust where honesty and integrity are inbuilt requirements of functioning, held, the matter should be dealt with iron hands and not leniently."
12. In retaliation to the above said contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-Bank, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's case deserves for a grant of compassionate allowance, as he belongs to S.C. community and had neither friends nor relatives to help him to come out of the said financial distress. He further submits that none of the family members of the petitioner are employed and the children of the petitioner are still prosecuting their studies, and his wife is suffering from ill-health. Therefore, the petitioner is in dire need of financial assistance from the bank, in which he rendered 28 years unblemished record of service with due diligence and devotion. Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, requested the respondent authorities to treat the 2 (2003) 3 SCC 605 15 petitioner's case as a special case for the grant of compassionate allowance.
13. The principal allegation involving the petitioner pertains to his role in fraudulently encashing eight (8) demand drafts aggregating to Rs.3.97 Crores at New Delhi and four (04) other demand drafts aggregating to Rs.3.20 Crores, which were returned unpaid by Ashram road Branch, Ahmedabad, and Service Branch, New Delhi, after seeking confirmation of non- issuance from Hussaini Alam Branch, from out of eighteen (18) demand draft forms, which were missing from the said Branch bearing signature of the petitioner. The particulars of the said demand draft forms, which are encashed and returned are annexed to the charge-sheet as Annexure-I and Annexure-II, respectively. The fate of six other demand draft forms remains unknown.
14. In the instant case, being the custodian of the security forms and while dealing with public money, the petitioner is expected to adhere to the systems and procedures while handling and holding joint custody of the security forms. However, while in joint custody of the security forms, the 16 petitioner has removed 18 blank demand draft forms and committed fraud, resulting in a huge loss to a tune of Rs.3.97 crores to the respondent Bank. From the said conduct of the petitioner, it is clear that he had failed to discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and due diligence as expected from a bank officer. Therefore, the delinquency committed by the petitioner falls in five illustrations demarcated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in MAHINDER DUTT SHARMA's case (1 supra), thereby disentitling him from the grant of compassionate allowance. Therefore, the respondent Bank authorities are justified in imposing the harshest punishment of dismissal from service against the petitioner and rejecting the case of the petitioner for grant of compassionate allowance. There is no illegality or arbitrariness in the said decision taken by the respondent bank authorities. Further, it is not a fit case to grant compassionate allowance to the petitioner as postulated under Regulation 31 of the State Bank of Hyderabad (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995. Therefore, there are no merits in the writ petition, and the same is liable to be dismissed. 17
15. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
______________________________________ NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J 16.12.2023 Note:
L.R.copy to be marked (B/o) Prv