B.Narayana Rao vs Canara Bank
2023 Latest Caselaw 1173 Kant

                                             -1-
                                                        WA No.2532 of 2015




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
                          DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023
                                           PRESENT
                            THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
                                             AND
                        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY
                              WRIT APPEAL NO.2532 OF 2015 (S-RES)
                   BETWEEN:
                   1.   B. NARAYANA RAO
                        AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
                        S/O LATE B. CHANNAKESHAVA RAO
                        RESIDING AT NO.11-13-758
Digitally signed
by RUPA V               GREENHILLS COLONY
Location: High          SOORNAGAR, HYDERABAD 500035.
Court of
Karnataka                                                      ...APPELLANT
                   (BY SRI. P.S. RAJAGOPAL, SR. COUNSEL FOR
                       SRI. PUTTE GOWDA K, ADV.,)
                   AND:
                   1.   CANARA BANK
                        A BODY CONSTITUTED UNDER THE
                        BANKING COMPANIES (ACQUISITION
                        AND TRANSFER OF UNDERTAKINGS)
                        ACT, 1970 HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE
                        AT NO.112, J.C.ROAD, BENGALURU-560 002
                        REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER (PERSONNEL).

                                                              ...RESPONDENT
                   (BY SRI. SANDESH J. CHOUTA, SR. COUNSEL FOR
                       SRI. VIKRAM UNNI RAJAGOPAL, ADV.,)

                        THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
                   HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
                   PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.10709/2013 DATED
                   17/07/2015.
                           -2-
                                     WA No.2532 of 2015




    THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                     JUDGMENT

This intra court appeal has been filed against

order dated 17.07.2014 passed by Learned Single

Judge by which writ petition preferred by the

appellant has been dismissed.

2. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal

briefly stated are that the appellant was appointed

as a clerk on 22.05.1972 in Syndicate Bank. The

appellant was promoted to the post of Senior

Manager in Grade Scale V in the year 2006. The

appellant at the relevant time was posted in the

bank at Kolkata. However, the appellant was placed

under suspension on 20.03.2009 in contemplation

of initiation of disciplinary proceeding.

3. A charge sheet dated 05.04.2010 was

served on the appellant, which contained three

WA No.2532 of 2015

charges. In all the three charges, it was stated that

the appellant by his action of grant of loan has

exposed the bank to the risk of loss to that extent.

The enquiry officer submitted a report on

30.09.2010 and found the charges to be proved. The

appellant submitted a response to the enquiry

report on 29.11.2010.

4. The disciplinary authority by an order

dated 17.02.2011 imposed the penalty of

compulsory retirement from service with immediate

effect. The appellant filed an appeal before the

appellate authority, which was dismissed by an

order dated 11.08.2011. The appellant has

challenged the aforesaid orders in a writ petition

viz.,W.P.No.39881/2012.

5. The General Manager (P) who is of the

same rank as the authority who imposed the penalty

WA No.2532 of 2015

of compulsory retirement on the appellant, issued a

show cause notice dated 16.08.2012 by which the

appellant was asked to show cause as to why under

Regulation 33 of the Syndicate Bank (Employees)

Pension Regulations, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as

'the Regulations' for short), 1/3rd of the pension of

the appellant being not withheld permanently, the

appellant submitted a reply. Thereafter by an order

dated 20.12.2012, General Manager (P) sanctioned

the pension at the rate of 2/3rd of the Regular

pension and directed withholding of the pension

permanently to the extent of 1/3rd. Thereafter, by

an order dated 31.12.2012, the pension of the

appellant was determined in terms of order dated

20.10.2012 passed by the General Manager (P).

6. The appellant challenged the aforesaid

orders dated 20.10.2012 and 31.12.2012 in a writ

WA No.2532 of 2015

petition before the Learned Single Judge. The

Learned Single Judge by an order dated 17.07.2015

dismissed the writ petition. In the aforesaid factual

background, this intra court appeal has been filed.

7. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant

submitted that no notice was issued to the appellant

with regard to grant of 2/3rd of the pension to the

appellant. It is further submitted that General

Manager (P) was the competent authority who had

passed the order dated 20.10.2012 withholding

1/3rd of the pension of the appellant and was not

competent to do so as under Regulation 33 of the

Regulations, the order withholding the pension was

required to be passed by competent authority. It is

also urged that 2/3rd of the pension of the

appellant was withheld under Regulations 45 and

48 of the Regulations, which had no application to

WA No.2532 of 2015

the facts of the case as aforesaid Regulations apply,

in case, a departmental proceeding is conducted

after retirement.

8. It is also pointed out that no finding has

been recorded either by the enquiry officer or by the

disciplinary authority that any financial loss has

been caused to the bank. It is also urged that Board

of Directors was not consulted before passing the

order dated 20.10.2012. In support of aforesaid

submissions, reliance has been placed on division

bench decisions of High court of Calcutta and High

Court of Himachal Pradesh in 'SRI.BHABATOSH

CHANDRA DAS VS. UNITED BANK OF INDIA AND

ORS. (2013) SCC ONLINE CAL 1064 and ARUN

KUMAR SOOD VS. CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING

DIRECTOR, UCO BANK AND OTHERS', (2019) SCC

ONLINE HP 1480.

WA No.2532 of 2015

9. On the other hand, Learned Senior

Counsel for the bank has pointed out that the

contention that no show cause notice is issued is

correct inasmuch as a show cause notice dated

16.08.2012 was issued to the appellant and after

considering the reply of the appellant, an order was

passed on 20.10.2012 withholding of 2/3rd of the

pension of the appellant. It is further submitted that

under Regulation 33 of the Regulations, the

competent authority could have passed the order

withholding pension and the order passed by the

competent authority was duly approved by board of

governors. It is also urged that Regulation 48 of the

Regulations apply to the case of the appellant as

well. It is contended that quantification of the loss

caused to the bank has also been made.

WA No.2532 of 2015

10. We have considered the rival submissions

made on both sides and have perused the record.

Before proceeding further, it is apposite to take note

of Regulation 33 of the Regulations. The relevant

extract reads as under:

                33.Compulsory           Retirement
     Pension:

                1.   An     employee    compulsorily

retired from service as a penalty on or after 1st day of November, 1993 in term of Syndicate Bank Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations 1976 or awards / settlements may be granted by the Authority higher than the authority competent to impose such penalty, pension at a rate not less than two thirds and not more than full pension admissible to him on the date of his compulsory retirement if otherwise he was entitled to such pension on superannuation on that date.

WA No.2532 of 2015

2. Whenever in the case of a bank employee the competent authority passes an order (whether original ; appellant or in exercise of power of review) awarding a pension less than the full compensation admissible under these regulations, the Board of Directors shall be consulted before such order is passed.

11. Thus, Regulation 33(1) of the Regulations

enables the authority higher than the competent

authority to impose the penalty of pension at the

rate not less than 2/3rd and not more than the full

pension admissible to an employee. Regulation 33

(2)of the Regulations provides that where competent

authority passes an order awarding a pension less

than the full pension admissible under the

Regulations, the Board of Directors shall be

consulted before such an order is passed.

- 10 -

WA No.2532 of 2015

12. It is noteworthy that Regulation 33 (1) of

the Regulations uses the expression 'may be'. In

other words, it enables an authority higher than the

competent authority to pass an order granting

pension at a rate not less than 2/3rd. In case, the

contention of the appellant that it is only an

authority higher than the competent authority can

pass an order withholding not less than 2/3rd of

pension, the provisions of Regulation 33 (2) of the

Regulations would be rendered otiose. Therefore,

such an interpretation on Regulation 33(1) which

renders the Regulation 33 (2) otiose cannot be

accepted.

13. In the instant case, the competent

authority has passed an order on 20.10.2012 and

the record indicates that Board of Governors

approved the same in its meeting on 16.07.2012.

- 11 -

WA No.2532 of 2015

Thus, prior to passing of the order, the competent

authority has consulted the board of governors. The

order dated 20.10.2012 by the competent authority

has been passed in consonance with Regulation

33(1) and 33(2) of the Regulations. The contention of

the appellant that the order has not been passed by

the competent authority does not deserve

acceptance and the same is hereby repelled.

14. The contention that no notice was issued

to the appellant before passing the order dated

20.10.2012 is concerned, suffice it to say that a

notice dated 16.08.2012 was issued to the appellant

by which the appellant was informed that it is

proposed to sanction compulsory retirement of

regular pension admissible to him as per Regulation

33 of the Regulations and to withhold 1/3rd of the

full pension admissible to him. In other words, the

- 12 -

WA No.2532 of 2015

appellant was informed that he shall only be entitled

to 2/3rd of the pension. The appellant submitted a

reply to the aforesaid notice on 06.09.2012 and

thereafter, an order was passed by the competent

authority on 20.10.2012. Therefore, the contention

that no notice was issued to the appellant also does

not deserve acceptance.

15. From perusal of the order dated

20.10.2012 passed by the competent authority, it is

evident that the loss caused to the bank has also

been quantified and therefore, the contention that

there is no finding with regard to the loss caused to

the bank also does not deserve acceptance.

16. The appellant has not been able to

demonstrate that any prejudice has been suffered by

him in the proceeding relating to issuance of an

order dated 20.10.2012. For the aforementioned

- 13 -

WA No.2532 of 2015

reasons, we concur with the conclusion arrived at by

Learned Single Judge.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

ss