Jharkhand High Court
Zonal Manager vs Dinesh Kumar Dubey on 29 April, 2025
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
2025:JHHC:12743-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No. 551 of 2024
1. Zonal Manager, Deputy General Manager & Appellate Authority,
Bank of India, Jamshedpur Zone, Bank of India Building, Main Road,
Bistupur, P.O. & P.S.: Bistupur Jamshedpur - 831001.
2. Assistant General Manager & Disciplinary Authority, Bank of India,
Jamshedpur Zone, P.O. & P.S.: Bistupur Bank of India Building,
Bistupur, Jamshedpur - 831001. ... ... Appellants
Versus
1. Dinesh Kumar Dubey, Aged about 66 years, S/o Late Rash Bihari
Dubey, Resident of Mohalla - Line No. -22, Quarter No. -10, Holding
No. - 483 'B', Kashidih Post Office - Sakchi, P.S. Sakchi, Jamshedpur
- 831001, District East Singhbhum, State Jharkhand.
2. Bank of India through the General Manager, Human Resources
Department (HRD), Head Office, Star House, Bandra Kurla Complex,
Bandra (East), P.O. : Bandra East, P.S.: Bandra Kurla Complex,
Mumbai -400051.
3. Executive Director, Bank of India, Head Office, Incharge of HRD Star
House, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), P.O.: Bandra East, P.S.:
Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai -400051.
4. Chief Executive Officer & Managing Director, Bank of India, Head
Office, Star House, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), P.O.:
Bandra East, P.S.: Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai -400051.
... Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
---------
For the Appellants : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate
For the Pvt. Resp. : Ms. Shreesha Sinha, Advocate.
Mr. Niraj Kumar, Advocate.
Mr. B. K. Prasad, Advocate.
---------
05/Dated: 29.04.2025
I.A. No. 11421 of 2024 filed for condonation of delay of 39 days in
filing the Appeal is allowed since it is not opposed by the respondents.
2. Heard both sides.
3. This Appeal is preferred challenging the judgment dt. 02.07.2024
of the learned Single Judge where the learned Single Judge has
disposed of the Writ Petition with the following direction :-
"9. In view of aforementioned legal proposition and observation
of this Court, I, hereby, direct the respondents - Bank
(Respondent No. 4) to release entire pensionary benefits (arrears
as well as current) after giving proper opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner. Since there is no such order of forfeiture of pensionary
benefits, the same requires no quashment. However, the matter is
-1 of 2-
2025:JHHC:12743-DB
remitted back to the authority concerned to reconsider case of the
petitioner for granting full pension in accordance with law taking
into consideration the aforesaid observations and interpretation of
Rule 33 of the Indian Bank (Employees') Pension Regulations,
1995. Let the entire exercise be completed within a period of eight
weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order."
4. It is the contention of the counsel for the appellants that if the
appellants-Bank were to release the entire pensionary benefits, no
useful purpose would be served by providing a hearing to the 1st
respondent and considering whether or not to forfeit the pension under
Rule 33 of Indian Bank (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995.
5. We find force in the said submission because if the entire
pensionary benefits including arrears are released to the 1st respondent,
it would be useless formality to provide opportunity of hearing to the 1st
respondent and decide as to how much of the pension the appellants-
Bank is to forfeit.
6. Therefore, the Appeal is allowed to the limited extent of setting
aside the direction of the learned Single Judge for releasing of the
entire pensionary benefits to the 1st respondent. The rest of the order of
the learned Single Judge is sustained.
7. The appellants-Bank shall issue a proper show cause notice to
the 1st respondent regarding its proposed forfeiture of pension, if any,
from the pensionary benefits claimed by the 1st respondent; allow the 1st
respondent to submit a reply to the said show cause notice; provide a
personal hearing to the 1st respondent and then pass a reasoned order
in accordance with law and communicate it to the 1st respondent.
8. Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, stands disposed of.
(M. S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.)
(Rajesh Shankar, J.)
APK/VK
-2 of 2-
