Karnataka High Court
Sri C V Revankar vs State Bank Of India on 13 January, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:1288-DB
WA No. 295 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
WRIT APPEAL NO. 295 OF 2024 (S-R)
BETWEEN:
SRI C V REVANKAR
S/O V B REVANKAR, AGED 69 YEARS
NO.11, 3RD MAIN STREET
LAKE VIEW, DEFENCE COLONY
SHETTIHALLY, JALAHALLI WEST
BANGALORE - 560 015.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. AMARESH N, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE BANK OF INDIA
LOCAL HEAD OFFICE
Digitally NO.65, ST.MARKS ROAD
signed by
NARAYANA BANGALORE - 560 001
UMA
Location:
HIGH ...RESPONDENT
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 07.11.2023 PASSED IN
W.P.No-8576/2015 (S-R) BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN
THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:1288-DB
WA No. 295 of 2024
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO
and
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO)
The challenge in this appeal is to an order dated
07.11.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition
No.8576/2015 whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed
the petition filed by the appellant herein.
2. The petitioner / appellant had filed the writ petition
seeking the entire Gratuity amount and also full pension, from
the respondent who had forfeited the complete Gratuity amount
and granted the pension at the rate of 2/3rd of the full pension.
The conceded position is that a charge sheet was issued to the
appellant under the Conduct Rules. The charges have been
proved by the Enquiry Officer which included that the
misdemeanor has led to loss to the Bank. It is also a conceded
position that the appellant herein had not challenged the
findings of the Enquiry Officer in any proceedings. Based on
the conclusion drawn by the Enquiry Officer in the enquiry
report, the Disciplinary Authority has imposed a penalty of
compulsory retirement on the appellant. It is in this
NC: 2025:KHC:1288-DB
background, the Gratuity was forfeited and the pension of the
appellant was fixed at 2/3rd of the full pension.
3. Learned Single Judge while rejecting the aforesaid
two grounds of challenge in the writ petition has, in paragraph
No.6 onwards, stated as under:-
"6. As could be seen from Section
4(6)(a) of the Act, an employee, whose
services had been terminated for any
act of wilful misconduct or negligence
causing any damage or loss to the
employer, would not be entitled for the
gratuity and the gratuity would be
forfeited to the extent of damage or loss
so caused to the employer.
7. The impugned order indicates that
the Enquiry Officer had held that the
charges against the petitioner had been
proved and the Bank has suffered a loss
to the extent of Rs.1,91,35,000/-. In
the light of the fact that the services of
the petitioner were compulsorily retired
and the further fact that the Bank has
suffered loss to the tune of
Rs.1,91,35,000/-, the Bank was entitled
under Section 4(6)(a) of the Act to
forfeit the entire gratuity amount. The
impugned order insofar as relating to
NC: 2025:KHC:1288-DB
forfeiture of gratuity cannot, therefore,
be found fault with.
8. As regards the claim for payment of
full pension is concerned, Regulation 33
of the Regulations reads as follows:
"33. Compulsory Retirement
Pension -
(1) An employee compulsorily
retired from service as a penalty on
or after 1st day of November, 1993
in terms of Service Regulations or
Settlement by the authority higher
than the authority competent to
impose such penalty may be
granted 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.
(2) Whenever the Competent
Authority passes an order (Whether
original, appellate or in exercise of
power of review) awarding pension
at a rate less than the full pension
admissible under these regulations,
the Board of Directors or its
Executive Committee shall be
consulted before such order is
passed.
(3) A Pension granted or awarded
under sub-regulation.
NC: 2025:KHC:1288-DB
(1) or, as the case may be,
under sub-regulation
(2) Shall not be less than the
amount of rupees three hundred
and seventy five per mensem."
9. As could be seen from Regulation 33
of the Regulations, if an employee had
been compulsorily retired from service
as a penalty in terms of the service
Regulations, such employee could be
granted pension only to an extent of
2/3rd of the entire pension and not the
full pension admissible to him.
10. In the instant case, since the
petitioner has admittedly been
compulsorily retired as a penalty, the
Bank would be well within its right to
refuse payment of full pension and
restrict his pensionary rights only to an
extent of 2/3rd. The argument of the
learned counsel for the petitioner that
the Disciplinary Authority, while
imposing the punishment of compulsory
retirement, had not ordered for
forfeiture or for reduction of pension
and therefore, these subsequent orders
cannot be passed is untenable. The
power to forfeit gratuity amount would
arise only after the services of an
employee is terminated. Similarly, the
NC: 2025:KHC:1288-DB
grant of only 2/3rd pension would also
be a decision that is taken after the
punishment of compulsory retirement
was passed. These are, in fact,
consequences of the punishment
imposed against an employee and these
need not be passed by the Disciplinary
Authority while imposing the
punishment for the proved misconduct.
11. In the light of the above, I find no
reason to entertain the writ petition and
the same is accordingly dismissed."
4. The submission of Mr. Amaresh N., learned counsel
for appellant is that, when the order of compulsory retirement
was passed, the Disciplinary Authority has not stated that the
Gratuity shall stand forfeited, as such, the respondent - Bank
could not have forfeited the same. We do not agree with the
said submission of Mr. Amaresh.N for the simple reason that
the forfeiture of the Gratuity is because of the operation of
Section 4(6)(a) of the Payment of Gratuity Act 1972. In other
words, it is the provision itself which contemplates that in the
eventuality the loss to the employer is proved, the same can
entail forfeiture of Gratuity. Even the plea of Mr. Amaresh.N
with regard to the payment of 2/3rd of full pension is
NC: 2025:KHC:1288-DB
concerned, learned Single Judge has relied upon Regulation 33
of the State Bank of Mysore (Employees') Pension Regulations,
1995 governing Compulsory Retirement Pension and stated
that in view of the said Regulation, the respondent - Bank
herein is within its right to grant pension only to the extent of
2/3rd of the entire pension, not full pension as admissible to
him otherwise. We agree with the said conclusion. More so the
appellant has neither challenged the findings of the Enquiry
Officer nor the punishment of compulsory retirement. We do
not see any merit in the appeal. The same is dismissed.
Pending I.A. does not survive for consideration and it
stands disposed of.
Sd/-
(V KAMESWAR RAO)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(S RACHAIAH)
JUDGE
BSS
