Orissa High Court
Sri Nilamani Padhi vs Uco Bank Represented By The on 7 August, 2024
Author: Savitri Ratho
Bench: Savitri Ratho
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.A. No. 1981 of 2024
Sri Nilamani Padhi .... Appellant
Mr. Surendra Nath Panda, Advocate
-versus-
UCO Bank represented by the .... Respondents
1. Competent Authority & General
Manager, UCO Bank, Kilkata
2. The Branch Manager, UCO Bank,
Titilagarh, Bolangir
Mr. Subrat Mishra, Advocate
(For UCO Bank)
CORAM:
THE CHIEF JUSTICE
JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
ORDER
Order No. 07.08.2024
01. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.
2. The judgment dated 25.06.2024 passed by a learned Single Judge of
this Court in W.P.(C) No. 15143 of 2019 is under challenge in the present
Intra-Court appeal whereby the writ application has been dismissed.
3. The appellant was an employee of UCO Bank and he retired as
Assistant General Manager, MEU Parliament Street Branch, New Delhi
on 01.06.2015. He had put to challenge an order dated 29.01.2018 passed
by the competent authority imposing punishment of reduction of one third
basic pension for 2 years on proved charge of misconduct against him.
The disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him after his retirement.
In accordance with Regulation 48 of UCO Bank (Employees') Pension
Regulations, 1995 which reads thus:
"48.Recovery of Pecuniary loss caused to the Bank -
(1) The Competent Authority may withhold or withdraw a pension
or a part thereof, whether permanently or for a specified
period, and order recovery from pension of the whole or part of
any pecuniary loss caused to the bank if in any departmental or
judicial proceedings the pensioner is found guilty of grave
misconduct or negligence or criminal breach of trust or forgery
or for acts done fraudulently during the period of his service:
Provided that the Board shall be consulted before any final
orders are passed:
Provided further that where a part of pension is withheld or
withdrawn the amount of pension drawn by a pensioner shall
not be less than the minimum pension payable under these
Regulations.
Provided also that the departmental proceedings, if instituted
while the employee was in service, shall, after the retirement of
the employee, be deemed to be proceedings under these
Regulations and shall be continued and concluded by the
authority by which they were commenced in the same manner
as if the employee had continued in service.
(2) No departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the
employee was in service, shall be instituted in respect of an
event which took place more than four years before such
institutions:
Provided that the disciplinary proceedings so instituted shall be
in accordance with the procedure applicable to disciplinary
proceedings in relation to the employee during the period of his
service.
(3) Where the Competent Authority orders recovery of pecuniary
loss from the pension, the recovery shall not ordinarily be made
at a rate exceeding one-third of the pension admissible on the
date of retirement of the employee."
4. Learned Single Judge after having noticed the submissions advanced
on behalf of the appellant and the Bank reached a conclusion that the
disciplinary proceeding was conducted following the principle of natural
justice and the appellant was given due opportunity to defend his case.
Learned Single Judge accordingly opined in the impugned judgment that
there was no requirement of interference with the finding of facts recorded
by the Enquiry Officer which was based on appreciation of evidence.
5. Assailing the impugned judgment, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the appellant has submitted that the appellant had taken specific
stand that no final order for reduction of pension could be passed without
consulting the Board of Directors of the Bank. The 2nd proviso of the
Regulation 48 of UCO Bank (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995
provides that "the Board shall be consulted before any final orders are
passed." He has submitted that the learned Single Judge has not
addressed the said stand taken on behalf of the appellant in the writ
proceeding.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has not
disputed the factual possession that before imposition of punishment of
reduction of pension, the Board was not consulted. He has however
submitted that the said requirement of consultation with the Board is
directory in nature and not mandatory. He has further argued that in any
event, the appellant cannot be said to have been prejudiced in the absence
of consultation with the Board. In support of his submission, he has
placed reliance on the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Haryana
Financial Corporation and Another vrs. Kailash Chandra Ahuja
reported in (2008) 9 SCC 31.
7. After having heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant and the Bank, we are of the view that the Supreme Court's
decision in the case of Kailash Chandra Ahuja (supra) has no
application to address the challenge of the appellant on the ground of
non-compliance of the requirement under Regulation 48 of UCO Bank
(Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995 pertaining to consultation with
the Board before passing of a final order under the said Regulation. The
decision in the case of Kailash Chandra Ahuja (supra) deals with the
effect of non-supply of inquiry report and in that background the
Supreme Court has held that the charged employee must show that
prejudice has been caused to him because of non-supply of the inquiry
report.
8. In the present case, the question is as to whether the order passed by
the competent authority, imposing punishment of reduction of basic
pension can be sustained which has been passed without complying
with the requirement of consultation with the Board required under the
first proviso to Regulation 48(1) of the Regulations ?
9. On careful scrutiny of the provision under Regulation 48(1) of the
Regulations, we are of the definite opinion that the requirement of
consultation with the Board is mandatory in nature as is evident from its
language itself. The first proviso mandates in no certain terms that the
Board shall "be consulted before any final orders are passed under
48(1) of the Regulation." The order of punishment dated 29.01.2018
having been passed without consultation with the Board, in the Court's
opinion cannot be sustained on the sole ground of absence of
consultation with the Board required under the first proviso to
Regulation 48(1) of the Regulations.
10. In our view, since the said crucial aspect has not been considered by
the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment, the same requires
interference. The impugned judgment dated 25.06.2024 passed by the
learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 15143 of 2019 is accordingly set
aside. The order of punishment dated 29.01.2018 passed by the
competent authority imposing order of punishment is also set aside with
an observation that the competent authority shall be at liberty to pass an
order afresh after consultation with the board as required under the first
proviso to Regulation 48(1) of the Regulations. We make it clear that
this is the only ground on which we have interfered with the order
passed by the learned Single Judge. We do not find any legal infirmity
in the other findings recorded by the learned Single Judge on the point
of finding of misconduct recorded by the competent authority.
11. We expect that the competent authority shall complete the exercise
of consultation with the Board within a period of two months from the
date of receipt/production of the copy of this order.
12. The writ appeal is accordingly disposed of.
13. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Chakradhari Sharan Singh)
Chief Justice
(Savitri Ratho)
Judge
puspa
Signed by: PUSPANJALI MOHAPATRA
