Karnataka High Court
Devendra K Joshi vs S Shankar on 22 February, 2022
Bench: B.Veerappa, M G Uma
-1-
CCC No. 56 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.VEERAPPA
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M. G. UMA
CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 56 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
1. DEVENDRA K. JOSHI,
AGED 67 YEARS,
S/O LATE KUMUDCHANDRA JOSHI,
B-1/64, ARJUN TOWER,
OPP: C P NAGAR PART II,
GHATLODIA,
AHMEDABAD-380 061.
...COMPLAINANT
(BY SRI K. R. GANESH RAO., ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed AND:
by
GAVRIBIDANUR 1. S. SHANKAR,
SUBRAMANYA
GUPTA CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER,
SREENATH
Location: High SYNDICATE BANK,
Court of NOW CANARA BANK,
Karnataka
HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT,
HEAD OFFICE, J.C.ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 002.
...ACCUSED
(BY SRI T.P. MUTHANNA, ADVOCATE)
*****
THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE
CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, BY THE COMPLAINANT,
PRAYING TO INITIATE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE
ACCUSED FOR NON-IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ORDERS DATED
-2-
CCC No. 56 of 2022
26.06.2012 AND 29.11.2019 PASSED IN W.P.NO.15124/2008
AND W.A.NO.5800/2012 RESPECTIVELY BY THIS COURT.
THIS CCC COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
B.VEERAPPA J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The complainant filed the present contempt petition
under the provisions of Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of
Courts Act, 1971 praying to take action against the accused for
willful and deliberate disobedience of the order dated 26.6.2012
made in Writ Petition No.15124/2008 and the judgment dated
29.11.2019 made in Writ Appeal No.5800/2012.
2. The learned Single Judge of this Court while allowing
the writ petition, has modified the orders dismissing the
complainant from service and levied the penalty of compulsory
retirement from service in place of dismissal and directed that
the accused/bank shall extend the consequential monetary
benefits to the complainant as expeditiously as possible and in
any event not later than three months from the date of receipt
of copy of the order.
3. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the learned
Single Judge, Writ Appeal No.5800 of 2012 came to be filed.
CCC No. 56 of 2022
The Coordinate Bench of this Court while dismissing the appeal,
has specifically observed at paragraph-17 as under:
"17. The alleged action of the petitioner has
not caused any financial loss to the bank. At the
most it can be said to be irregular but not illegal. The
learned Single Judge considering the length of
service and unblemished past record of the petitioner
and the part of charge is not proved, held that the
penalty of dismissal is on the higher side and
converted into compulsory retirement. The learned
Single Judge was justified in modifying the order of
dismissal into one of compulsory retirement. The
respondent-Bank has not made out any grounds to
interfere with the impugned order. We also do not
find any grounds to interfere with the impugned
order".
4. Since the accused has not complied the orders passed
by the learned Single Judge and the Coordinate Bench of this
Court in writ petition and writ appeal respectively within the
stipulated time, the complainant was forced to file the present
contempt petition on 13.01.2022
5. In response to the notice issued by this Court in the
present contempt petition, learned counsel for the accused filed
CCC No. 56 of 2022
the counter-affidavit duly sworn to by accused, wherein at
paragraphs 7,8 and 9 it is specifically stated as under:
"7. 1 state that against forfeiture of gratuity,
the Complainant had filed an application before the
Controlling Authority under The Payment of Gratuity
Act, 1972 & Assistant Labour Commissioner
(Central), Ahmedabad which was allowed vide its
order dated 12.04.2021. Against the said order, the
Respondent Bank has filed an Appeal before the
Appellate Authority under The Payment of Gratuity
Act & Dy. Chief Labour Commissioner (Central),
Ahmedabad P.G Appeal No. AH/DYCLC/48(19)/2021
on 20.06.2021 and the same is pending before the
Authority.
8. I state that Syndicate Bank was
amalgamated with Canara Bank w.e.f. 01.04.2020.
The Complainant submitted a representation on
15.07.2020 requesting the Respondent Bank to pay
Privilege Leave encashment. The Complainant was
informed by the Respondent Bank that in terms of
the guidelines issued by Indian Banks Association,
Canara Bank issued a Circular dated 10.09.2015
stating therein that the PL encashment is paid only to
such of those compulsorily retired employees who
exited on or after 30.04.2015 and hence he is not
eligible for PL encashment. A copy of the said
CCC No. 56 of 2022
Circular dated 10.09.2015 is annexed hereto as
ANNEXURE-R1.
9. It is noted that e-Syndicate Bank issued a
Circular on 15.04.2017 with regard to Encashment of
Privilege Leave on Compulsory Retirement, stating
that the Encashment of Privilege leave is extended to
the Officers who were compulsorily retired as penalty
during the period from 27.11.2000 to 29.04.2015,
subject to a maximum of 240 days and this facility is
extended out of empathy and as a goodwill gesture
towards these Officers and they shall not be entitled
to claim any interest for the intervening period, i.e.,
from the date of compulsory retirement to actual
date of PL encashment. A copy of the said Circular
dated 15.04.2017 is annexed hereto as ANNEXURE-
R2. Having regard to the above, the competent
authority of the Respondent Bank has permitted to
pay eligible PL encashment as per the said Circular
dated 15.04.2017 to the Complainant and the same
has been paid on 17.02.2022."
6. Since this Court not satisfied with the counter-affidavit,
when the matter came up before this Court today, Sri T.P.
Muthanna, learned counsel for the accused/bank filed the
memo dated 22.02.2002 on behalf of the accused, which reads
as under:
CCC No. 56 of 2022
"The accused/respondent above named
respectfully submits as under:
In terms of the order dt.26.06.2012, passed
by the Ld. Single Judge in WP 15124/2008 the
respondent Bank has paid the monetary benefits to
the complainant except Privilege Leave Encashment.
Further, the respondent/accused paid Privilege
Leave encashment of Rs.2,36,856.7/- to the
complainant on 17.02.2022. The Contempt Petition
came up for hearing before this Hon'ble Court today.
The Respondent / Accused has agreed to pay Simple
interest @ 10% p.a. on the Leave Encashment of Rs.
2,36,856/- paid to the complainant from 01.04.2020
till this day. The interest from 01.04.2020 l.e. the
date of Amalgamation till date @10% p.a. comes to
Rs. 47,569/-. The Respondent / Accused undertakes
to deposit the amount of interest to the
complainant's Bank account before tomorrow i.e.
23.02.2022.
In view of the above, I pray that this Hon'ble
Court may be pleased to drop the Contempt
Proceedings, in the interest of justice."
CCC No. 56 of 2022
7. The memo dated 22.02.2022 is duly signed by the
accused as well as his counsel and the same is placed on
record.
8. The records clearly depict that the order passed by
the learned Single Judge in the writ petition on 26.06.2012.
Being aggrieved, the accused filed the writ appeal, which came
to be dismissed on 29.11.2019. Therefore, the accused/bank
ought to have complied the order within three months i.e., on
or before 28.2.2020. But, the accused complied the order only
on 17.2.2022, thereby there is a delay of nearly two years.
Therefore, this Court proposes to impose heavy costs on the
accused.
9. At this stage, Sri T.P. Muthanna, learned counsel for
the accused/bank fairly submits that the accused/bank has
agreed to pay Simple Interest @ 10% per annum on the Leave
Encashment amount of Rs.2,36,856/- paid to the complainant
from 1.4.2020 till this day. He further submits that interest
from 1.4.2020 i.e., the date of amalgamation till date @ 10%
per annum comes to Rs.47,569/- (Forty-seven thousand five
hundred and sixty-nine only) and the accused/bank undertakes
CCC No. 56 of 2022
to deposit the amount of interest to the bank account of the
complainant by tomorrow i.e., 23.02.2022.
10. The said submissions are placed on record.
11. In view of the above, we resist to impose heavy
costs and the accused/bank is liable to pay only nominal costs
of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) for the delay of
two years.
12. For the reasons stated above, we pass the following:
ORDER
The Contempt proceedings are hereby dropped
subject to payment of interest amount of Rs.47,569/-
and costs of Rs.20,000/- i.e., in total a sum of
Rs.67,569/- (Rupees sixty-seven thousand five
hundred and sixty-nine only) by the accused/bank to
the complainant by 23rd February 2022 (tomorrow).
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
GSS
