Delhi High Court
Krishan Dev vs Central Bank Of India on 21 November, 2019
$~3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision :- 21.11.2019
+ W.P.(C) 2061/2008
KRISHAN DEV ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Manish Kumar, Adv.
versus
CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA ..... Respondent
Through: Ms.Rachna Gupta, Adv.
REKHA PALLI, J (ORAL)
1. The present writ petition filed by an ex-employee of the
respondent/bank assails the order dated 30.07.2007 passed by the
learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court-II,
Rajender Place, New Delhi in LCA. No.29/2006. Under the
impugned award, the petitioner's claim was rejected.
2. The petitioner who had been serving in the respondent/Bank
since January, 1971 applied for voluntary retirement as per the
scheme floated by the respondent. Upon his request being accepted,
he was released from service on 31.03.2001. Soon thereafter in May,
2001, the petitioner came to be apprehended in a criminal case arising
out of FIR No.14/2001, which had been registered before his
retirement and even though no disciplinary action was initiated by the
respondent, the petitioner's pension as also the ex-gratia payment
payable to him, in terms of the Bank's Voluntary Retirement Scheme,
WP (C) No.2061/2008 Page 1 of 4
2001 was withheld.
3. The petitioner therefore, approached the Central Government
Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court on 31.07.2006 by way of an
application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
(hereinafter referred to as 'the I.D. Act) which came to be rejected
under the impugned order dated 30.07.2007, by observing as under:-
" In the present case the workman has been found guilty of
grave mis-conduct by the bank in the light of statement of the
pensioner given to the Police and in view of the fact that trial
is pending against the workman.
The confessional statement given to the Police is not
admissible in evidence.' However, the Police has filed
chargesheet in the Court and the trial is pending. After filing
of the chargesheet the bank can held that the workman is
prima faciedly guilty of gross mis-conduct and inquiry is not
required in such cases. The workman cannot get benefit of
not being convicted by a court of law. Chargesheet has been
submitted by the Police. The trial is sun-judice.
The Police has filed chargesheet in the court after proper
investigation. The filing of the chargesheet may be taken to
be prima faciedly proved, that the applicant is guilty of gross
mis-conduct for pension purposes. The competent authority
may withheld the pension on apprehension of the pensioner
having committed grave mis-conduct. On being convicted
there is provision for withdrawal of pension or a part thereof.
If there is provision for withdrawal of pension or a part
thereof the competent authority may withheld pension on
being prima faciedly satisfied that the pensioner has
committed grave mis-conduct."
4. Impugning the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the
petitioner at the outset submits that during the pendency of the present
writ petition, the petitioner has been honourably discharged by the
WP (C) No.2061/2008 Page 2 of 4
Criminal Court and, therefore, the very basis of the impugned order,
no longer survives. In view of these changed circumstances, the
impugned order rejecting his claim is not sustainable as the same was
premised on the fact that a charge sheet had been filed against the
petitioner and his trial before the criminal court was still pending, it
had therefore been concluded that the petitioner was guilty of the
alleged misconduct. He thus contends that now that the petitioner
stands honourably discharged, his due pension and ex gratia payment
should be released to him at the earliest. He, therefore, prays that the
writ petition be allowed.
5. On the other hand, Ms.Rachna Gupta, learned counsel for the
respondent while supporting the impugned order submits that mere
discharge of the petitioner in the criminal proceedings does not
change the fact that the petitioner had indulged in a serious
misconduct and that he had also made a statement before the police
clearly admitting his misconduct, which fact was noticed by the
learned Labour Court. She therefore, prays that the writ petition be
dismissed.
6. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for
the parties and with their assistance perused the record, I find merit in
the petitioner's contention. There is no doubt that in view of the
petitioner's honourable discharge, the very basis of the impugned
order no longer exists. Today, when the petitioner stands honourably
discharged upon the Criminal Court finding that there was no
evidence against him, it cannot be said that the petitioner is guilty of
any misconduct whatsoever specially when no disciplinary action was
WP (C) No.2061/2008 Page 3 of 4
initiated against him. The findings of the Labour Court were based
only on the premise that the petitioner's trial before the criminal court
was still subjudice and once the proceedings have resulted in the
petitioner's discharge, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is,
therefore, set aside.
7. The writ petition is accordingly allowed by not only setting
aside the impugned order but by further directing the respondent to
release all the pensionary dues of the petitioner as also the ex-gratia
payment due to him within eight weeks. It is further directed that in
case the arrears are not paid to the petitioner within the next eight
weeks, the same will carry interest at the rate of 10% per annum from
the date of expiry of eight weeks.
8. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
REKHA PALLI, J.
NOVEMBER 21, 2019
gm
