Madhya Pradesh High Court
Narmada Prasad Choudhary vs Bank Of India on 20 January, 2025
..1..
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:976
2025:MPHC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
A T JA BA L PUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT,
CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
WRIT APPEAL No. 445 of 2024
BANK OF INDIA THROUGH ITS GENERAL MANAGER AND
ANOTHER
Versus
NARMADA PRASAD CHOUDHARY
Appearance:
Shri Ashish Shroti - Advocate for the appellant - Bank.
Respondent in person.
WRIT APPEAL No. 720 of 2024
NARMADA PRASAD CHOUDHARY
Versus
BANK OF INDIA THROUGH ITS GENERAL MANAGER AND
ANOTHER
Appearance:
Appellant in person.
Shri Ashish Shroti - Advocate for the respondent - Bank.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: CHRISTOPHER
PHILIP
Signing time: 1/20/2025
3:49:06 PM
..2..
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:976
2025:MPHC
Reserved on - 03.12.2024
Pronounced on - 20.01.2025
ORDER
Per: Hon'ble Shri Justice Suresh Kumar Kait, Chief Justice:
1. By this common order, both these writ appeals are being disposed
of as one has been filed by the appellant/Bank of India (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Bank') and the another by the employee (writ
petitioner) against the same impugned order allowing in part by the
learned Single Judge.
No.445/2024 has been filed by the Bank being
aggrieved by the order dated 23.11.2023 passed by the learned Single
Judge in Writ Petition No.3428/2021 whereby the writ petition filed by
the writ petitioner Narmada Prasad Choudhary was partly allowed with
the following directions:
directions:-
"18. Accordingly this petition is allowed in part directing the
respondent Bank to count the total service of the petitioner
counting the period of 7 years 8 months and 11 days to be in
service and his total length of service shall be calculated w.e.f
08.07.1974 till 30.06.2013, as such retiral benefits and other
pensionary benefits be calculated accordingly and other benefit
for which the petitioner is entitled, be also granted to him
treating him to be in service during that period also. The
aforesaid exercise be carried out within a period of three months
from the date of receipt of copy of this order and whatever
arrears are drawn, the same shall also be paid to the petitioner
within the aforesaid period. It is m
made
ade clear that if arrears
arrea are
not paid to the petition
petitioner
er within the given time, the same will
carry interest @ 8% per annum till the date of actual payment
made to the petitioner."
3. Writ Appeal No.720/2024 has been filed by writ petitioner
Narmada Prasad Choudhary as well being aggrieved by that portion of
..3..
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:976
2025:MPHC
the order dated 23.11.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in the
same petition i.e. Writ Petition No.3428/2021 declining the reliefs
relief as
prayed in Para 7(ii) to (v) in the writ petition and seeks
ks indulgence of
this Court to grant the same.
4. The petitioner contends that the
t learned Single Judge allowed the
writ petition in part.. The prayer of the petitioner in his appeal is that the
learned Single Judge has declined the following reliefs as sought in the
writ petition, which reads
read as under:-
ii) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the
Respondents to pay all the arrears of Fitment/appropriate
pension/Gratuity/Commutation/leave encashment/refund the
salary 2,05,000/
2,05,000/- (deducted for 07 months 05 days) between the
period 07/01/2002
07/01/20 to 30/06/2013 with all the consequential &
promotional benefits alongwith 20% interest p.a. from
07/01/2002 till actual payment.
iii) Any other relief/ orders/ direction/ directions which this
Hon'ble Court deems just and proper may also be passed in the
interest of justice.
iv) Heavy cost of the petition may also be granted to the
petitioner.
v) To quash the respondent's Appellate oorder rder dated
10/10/2009 (Annexure P/12) & Review order dated 21/06/2010
(Annexure P/13) and respondents be also directed to pay arrears
of salary/Fitment & revised monthly pension after re
re-calculation
calculation
of appropriate Basic Pay from 07/01/2002 to 30/06/2013 and an
arrears of pension on revised basic pay from 01/07/2013 till date
of actual payment alongwith an interest @ 20% p.a. from
07/01/2002 in the interest of justice."
5. The crux of the case is that the petitioner was working on the post
of Senior Manager.. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him
in which punishment of compulsory retirement was imposed by the
disciplinary authority. The order of compulsory retirement was assailed
..4..
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:976
2025:MPHC
by the petitioner in Writ
W Petition No. 681 of 2003 before the learned
Single Judge,, which was finally heard and allowed vide order dated
01.12.2004, setting-aside
aside the order of compulsory retirement as well as
all consequential orders passed by the authority and the matter was
remitted back 1to
to the disciplinary authority with a direction to impose
adequate punishment, which would be proportionate to the delinquency
proved.. It was also directed that the disciplinary authority would not
impose the punishment of dismissal, removal, compulsory retirement
and reversion. It was further directed that the order of punishment shall
be passed after reinstating the petitioner in service. The petitioner shall
not be entitled to any back wages.
6. The said order dated 01.12.2004 passed by the learned Single
Judge was assailed by the Bank by filing Writ Appeal No.107 of 2007,
which was dismissed vide order dated 11.09.2007 and the matter was
remitted back to the appellate authority to decide the quantum of
punishment to be imposed on the petitioner after keeping in mind the
observations made
ade by the Court in the said order, within a period of two
months of receipt of certified copy of the order.
7. Against the order dated 11.09.2007 passed by the Division Bench
of this Court in Writ Appeal No.107 of 2007,
2007 the Special
pecial Leave
Petitions preferred by the Bank as well as by the writ petitioner were
also dismissed by the Apex Court vide order dated 17.08.2009
17.08.2009. The
appellate authority, thereafter, complied with the direction given by the
Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.107 of 2007
007 and passed
an order of punishment on10.10.2009 in the following manner:
manner:-
"Reduction of basic pay to the first stage of Officers' cadre Junior
Management Scale I for further three years with cumulative
..5..
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:976
2025:MPHC
effect, with immediate effect in terms of Regulatio
Regulation
n 4(f) of Bank of
India Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations,
1976. Accordingly, the basic pay of Shri N.P. Choudhary will be
fixed at Rs.10,000/-.".
Rs.10,000/
8. Although a review was preferred against the said order, but the
same was dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioner was informed vide letter
dated 31.07.2013 (Annexure-P/16)
(Annexure P/16) giving details of his service
service, in which
it was mentioned that the petitioner joined services with the Bank on
08.07.1974; the order of compulsory retirement was passed on
07.01.2002; the petitioner joined after his reinstatement on 18.09.2009
and the petitioner retired on 30.06.2013. Though the total
otal period of
service was 38 years 11 months and 22 days, but the period of
compulsory retirement i.e. 7 years 8 months and 11 days was excluded
and the total service after deduction of said period was calculated for
payment of gratuity as qualifying service was 30 years 8 months and 6
days. Service ranking for gratuity was shown as 31 years. In the said
letter, the amount of gratuity payable to the petitioner was calculated as
Rs.7,93,722/- and amount of gratuity already paid to him was
Rs.2,42,069/-,, as such, remaining amount of gratuity i.e. Rs.5,51,653/-
Rs.5,51,653/
was credited in his account.
9. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representat
ation to the
respondents/Bank for release of arrears and also the order of promotion
which was kept under sealed cover and claimed that he may be granted
full gratuity, leave encashment for 8 months' salary, monthly pension of
basic pay of Rs.79,310/-
Rs.79,310/ and also claimed refund of Rs.2,05,000/
Rs.2,05,000/- which
was illegally deducted from his salary treating as leave without pay
whereas there was sufficient leaves in his credit.
10. The main grievance as was
was raised by the petitioner is that the
Bank unnecessarily excluded the period of service i.e. 7 years 8 months
..6..
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:976
2025:MPHC
and 11 days whereas his total service was 38 years 11 months and 22
days, but according to the petitioner, that period cannot be excluded from
his total service because the order of compulsory retirement was set
set-
aside by this Court with a direction to reinstate him in service. The
petitioner has also challenged the order of punishment passed by the
appellate authority in pursuance of the orders of writ Court and Division
Bench on the ground that such type of punishment is unknown to law
law.
He placed reliance upon the judgment of Supreme Court reported in
(2012) 5 SCC 242 - Vijay Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others;
Others
the orders passed by Delhi High
Hi Court in W.P. No.(c) 625 of 2016 -
V.K. Malhotra Vs. Union Bank of India;
India (2010) 11 SCC 71 - South
Bengal State Transport Corporation Vs. Ashok Kumar Ghosh &
Others; (1999) 5 SCC 762 -Bank
Bank of India & Another Vs. Degala
Suryanarayana; and order passed in SLPC No.1414-16
16 of 1998 -
Kuldeep Singh Vs. Commissioner of Police to contend that he has been
wrongly denied the consequential benefits.
benefits
11. The Appellant/Bank filed their reply opposing the submissions
made by the petitioner and raised objection with regard to the challenge
made by the petitioner about the order passed by appellate authority on
10.10.2009 submitting that the said order has been assailed by the
petitioner in the year 2021 and there was no explanation given by the
petitioner about the delay,
delay, therefore, the petition deserves to be
dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. It is also submitted that the
petitioner has been paid retiral dues as per his entitlement. It is further
contended that the order of punishment passed by the appellat
appellate authority
is not unknown to law,
law, but it falls within the punishment prescribed
under Regulation 4(f) of the Bank of India Officer Employees'
(Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976. The
he petitioner did not perform
the duties from 07.01.2002 to 17.09.2009, therefore, benefit of the said
..7..
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:976
2025:MPHC
period cannot be granted to him and that period has rightly been
deducted from the total length of service. Also submitted that petitioner
was not eligible for CRS pension and the period for which the petitioner
did not perform the duties, would not be counted for the purpose of
calculation of leave and other benefits.
12. Learned counsel for the Appellant/Bank further contended that
the relief claimed by the petitioner by way of amendment, is barred by
time, which cannot be considered and the Petitioner cannot be granted
any benefit for the reason that the order passed in the year 2009 was
assailed in the year 2021 without there being any sufficient explanation
for delay, therefore
fore no illegality was committed by the Bank and the
order passed by the learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside.
13. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record
record.
14. On perusal of the record,
record it reveals that the writ petitioner was
imposed with a penalty of compulsory retirement after conducting the
departmental enquiry in relation to the charge of misconduct as levelled
in the charge-sheet
sheet in terms of Regulation 4(f) of the Bank of India
Officer Employees' (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976 vide order
dated 07.01.2002 passed by the Disciplinary Authority, which was
affirmed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 16
16.08.2002.
.08.2002. The
petitioner challenged order of punishment of compulsory ret
retirement as
well as order of appellate authority in Writ Petition No.681/2003, which
was disposed of vide order dated 01.12.2004 by the learned Single
Bench with the following directions:-
directions:
"12. In view of the aforesaid analysis, I am inclined to quash
the order of compulsory retirement, Annexure P/25 and
affirmation
ffirmation thereof, contained in Annexure P/30.
P/3 . As a logically
..8..
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:976
2025:MPHC
corollary all subsequent orders passed on review and mercy
petition would also pave the path of extinction. The matter is
remitted to the disciplinary authority to impose adequate
punishment, which would be proportionate to the delinquency
proved. However, the disciplinary authority would not impose
the punishment of dismissal, removal, compulsory retirement and
reversion. The order of punishment shall be passed after
reinstating the petitioner in service. The petitioner shall not be
entitled to any backwages.
15. The Bank assailed the aforesaid order dated 01.12.2004 by filing aan
appeal i.e. Writ Appeal No.107/2007, which was disposed of by the
Division Bench vide order dated 11.09.2007 with following directions:
directions:-
"34. In the result, we hold that the order of compulsory
retirement imposed on the respondent was irrational as per the
Wednesbury norms and extremely harsh on the respondent for
the only charge of false claim of transportation of his belongings
from Barkhedi to Sagar of Rs.5,410
Rs.5,410/- established against
inst him,
but instead of quashing the order of compulsory retirement
imposed by the disciplinary authority, we remit the matter to the
appellant authority to decide the quantum of punishment to be
imposed on the respondent after keeping in mind the
observations
tions made by us in this judgment within two months of
receipt of a certified copy of this judgment."
16. Against the said order dated 11.09.2007 passed by the Division
Bench in Writ Appeal No.107/2007, the Bank approached the Supreme
Court in SLP (c) No.21213/2007
No.21213/2007 and the writ petitioner too filed an SLP
(C) No.11988/2008 before the Supreme Court against the same order.
order
Both the SLPs were dismissed by the Supreme Court vide order dated
17.08.2009. In consequence thereto, the order dated 11.09.2007 passed
by
y the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.107/2007 has
become operational.
17. After dismissal of the aforesaid SLPs by the Supreme Court, the
writ petitioner was reinstated in service vide order dated 28.08.2009 and
..9..
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:976
2025:MPHC
he joined the service on 18.09.2009
18.09.2009 and was posted at Panagar Branch,
Jabalpur. However, it was stated by the Bank that quantum of
punishment will be examined separately.
separately. While the petitioner was
posted at Chhindwara Branch, he was retired on attaining the age of
superannuation on 30.06.2013.
18. It is pertinent to mention herein that
hat in pursuance to the order
dated 11.09.2007 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ
Appeal No.107/2007, the Bank reconsidered the matter on the question
of quantum of punishment and passed an order
rder dated 10.10.2009 as
below:-
"Reduction of basic pay to the first stage of Officers' cadre Junior
Management Scale I for further three years with cumulative
effect, with immediate effect in terms of Regulation 4(f) of Bank of
India Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations,
1976. Accordingly, the basic pay of Shri N.P. Choudhary will be
fixed at Rs.10,000/-."
Rs.10,000/
19. Thereafter, on 22.01.2010 the writ petitioner sought review of the
aforesaid order dated 10.10.2009 passed by the Bank, which was
disposed of affirming the said order of punishment.
20. Ultimately, the Bank passed order
orderss dated 31.07.2013 and
15.09.2020 on
n the representations
representation of the petitioner, which were
ere filed
prior to his retirement
retirement, reducing
ducing the length of service of the petitioner
and disentitling him for any terminal benefits.
21. The petitioner in the writ petition relatable to thee present appeal
assailed the orders dated 15.09.2020 (Annexure P/1) and 31.07.2013
31.07.20
(Annexure P/16) and by way of an amendment, he also challenged the
appellate punishment order dated 10.10.2009 (Annexure P/12) and
review order dated 21.06.2020 (Annexure P/13) affirming the
..10..
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:976
2025:MPHC
punishment order. The said writ petition was disposed of by the learned
Single Judge vide
de order dated 23.11.2023 with the following directions:
directions:-
"18. Accordingly this petition is allowed in part directing the
respondent Bank to count the total service of the petitioner
counting the period of 7 years 8 months and 11 days to be in
service and his total length of service shall be calculated w.e.f
08.07.1974 till 30.06.2013, as such retiral benefits and other
pensionary benefits be calculated accordingly and other benefit
for which the petitioner is entitled, be also granted to him
treating him toto be in service during that period also. The
aforesaid exercise be carried out within a period of three months
from the date of receipt of copy of this order and whatever
arrears are drawn, the same shall also be paid to the petitioner
within the aforesaid period. It is made clear that if arrears are
not paid to the petitioner within the given time, the same will
carry interest @ 8% per annum till the date of actual payment
made to the petitioner."
22. It is not in dispute that the order on the question of punishment
has been passed by the Bank in view of the order dated 11.09.2007
passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.107/2007
which became operational after the dismissal the SLPs fil
filed by the
parties before the Supreme Court.
23 Now the question which is to be considered in
in these appeals is
whether the writ Court was justified in issuing the directions granting all
the consequential benefits including the period of compulsory
retirement, while disposing of the writ petition.
24. We have gone through the order passed by the learned writ Court
and are of the considered view that the
the learned Single Judge has rightly
considered that the period during which the petitioner was out of service
and has not performed the duties, cannot be excluded from his total
qualifying service and also cannot be deducted from the total length of
..11..
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:976
2025:MPHC
service of the petitioner, because in the earlier round of litigation when
writ court was of the opinion that
tha the punishment of compulsory
retirement was too harsh and the appellate authority after the
observations made by the Division Bench passed the order modifying
the punishment of compulsory retirement to that of reduction of basic
pay to the first stage of officer cadre Junior Management Scale
Scale-1, after
reinstating him in service, we are of the considered view that the writ
petitioner cannot be denied benefits of the period during which he was
wrongly compulsorily retired from service and was kept away from the
service due to currency of said punishment. In this view of the matter,
learned Single Judge has rightly observed that his total length of service
should be counted including the period for which he was out of service
i.e. from 07.01.2002
.01.2002 to 17.09.2009.
17 When the appellate authority
modified the punishment which was imposed on the petitioner earlier
then there is no reason to deny him benefit for which otherwise he was
entitled to.
25. The Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and others
Vs. P. Gunasekaran reported in (2015) 2 SCC 610 has held as
follows:-
"25. The last contention is with regard to date of effect of the
punishment. According
According to the respondent, even assuming that
compulsory retirement is to be imposed, it could be only with
effect from the date of order, viz., 28.02.2000. We are unable to
appreciate the contention. The respondent stood dismissed from
service as per order dated 10.06.1997. It was that punishment
which was directed to be reconsidered. Consequent thereon only,
the punishment was altered/substituted to compulsory retirement.
Necessarily, it has to be from the date of dismissal from service,
viz., 10.06.1997.
..12..
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:976
2025:MPHC
26. In one another case of NTR University of Health Services Vs.
Prakasam Reddy reported in (2016) 16 SCC 645, the
he Supreme Court is
of the view that the punishment of dismissal or removal is substituted by
other punishment, the substituted punishment will take effect from the
original date of the punishment. The relevant para of the judgment is as
follows:-
4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant/University
/University and also the counsel for the respondent, we
are of the view that interest of justice would be served, in case
the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 09.03.2007
09.03.200 is
implemented by substituting the punishment of dismissal/removal
by any other suitable punishment. The substituted punishment
will take effect from the original date of the punishment viz.
05.03.1997. The monetary benefits, if any, flowing out of
substituted punishment shall be disbursed to the respondent
including the pensionery benefits, if any, within the period of
10 weeks from today. The arrears, if any, shall carry interest
@ 6% per annum with effect from 05.03.1997.
27. From the perusal of record, we notice that the
he SLP which was
preferred by the Bank against the order passed by the Division Bench of
this Court in the earlier round of litigation was also dismissed by the
Apex Court affirming
ming the said order, in which it was observed that the
punishment of compulsory retirement was too harsh and the Court
remitted the matter to the appellate authority to impose adequate
punishment.. The only charge of false claim of transportation of his
belongings from Barkhedi to Sagar of Rs.5,410/-
Rs.5,410/ was established
ished against
the petitioner, then the appellate authority after reinstating the petitioner
passed the punishment order reducing the basic pay and the order of
compulsory retirement was modified. In our considered opinion, the
t
authority had wrongly imposed the punishment of compulsory
retirement which was not proportionate to the delinquency proved
..13..
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:976
2025:MPHC
against the petitioner and he was wrongly kept out of service and the
adequate punishment was provided under the provision of the Bank of
India Officer Employees'
Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976.
The Apex Court in the aforesaid judgments observed that when the order
of punishment is modified to a lesser punishment, it shall apply from the
date on which the original order of punishment was passed. Hence, the
appellant/Bank cannot be allowed to deny the consequential benefits to
the petitioner, because the order of compulsory retirement was modified
and order of reinstatement was passed, therefore he shall be entitled for
consequential benefits from the datee on which original order of
punishment was passed.
passed
28. In
n view of the above facts and circumstances and settled position
of law, since the order of punishment of compulsory retirement was
modified into a lesser punishment by the appellate authority and
petitioner was reinstated in service,
service we are of the considered view that
the order of learned Single Judge is justified.
justified Hence, no interference is
called for in these appeals. Both the writ appeals are hereby dismissed
affirming
ming the order of the learned Single Judge.
Judge The
he Bank is directed to
comply the order of learned Single Judge within four weeks from today.
(SURESH KUMAR KAIT) (VIVEK JAIN)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
C.
