Telangana High Court
A.Narsing Rao, vs State Bank Of India , on 16 December, 2023
1
*THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
+ W.P.No.4337 OF 2018
% 16--12--2023
# A.Narsing Rao
...Petitioner
vs.
$ State Bank of India and others
... Respondents
!Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri P.V.Venkateswara Rao
^Counsel for Respondents : Sri Alluri Krishnam Raju
<Gist :
>Head Note :
? Cases referred
1. (2014) 11 Supreme Court Cases 684
2. (2003) 3 SCC 605
2
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
HYDERABAD
****
WRIT PETITION No.4337 OF 2018
Between:
A.Narsing Rao
... Petitioner
and
State Bank of India and others
... Respondents
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 16.12.2023
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers
may be allowed to see the Judgments? :
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be
Marked to Law Reporters/Journals? :
3. Whether His Lordship wishes to
see the fair copy of the Judgment? :
____________________________________________
NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J
3
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWARA RAO
WRIT PETITION No.4337 of 2018
ORDER
This writ petition was filed seeking the following relief:
"........ to issue order, direction or writ more suitably WRIT
OF MANDAMUS declare the action of the 2nd respondent in
rejecting petition submitted by the petitioner for granting
compassionate allowance on 06.01.2015 through
Lr.F/140390/PPG/38, dt.11.05.2017 of the 2nd respondent is
irregular, illegal, arbitrary, not in accordance with and
Regulation 31 of the State Bank of Hyderabad Employees
Pension Regulations 1995, and violates Art.14 of the
Constitution of India and consequently (i) set aside the
rejection order for compassionate allowance issued through
Lr.F/140390/PPG/38, dt.11.05.2017 by the 2nd respondent;
(ii) direct the 2nd respondent to consider the representation
of the petitioner dated 06.01.2015 for grant of
compassionate allowance pension and grant compassionate
allowance as per Regulation 31 of the State Bank of
Hyderabad Employees' Pension Regulations 1995 ......".
2. Heard Sri P.V. Venkateswara Rao, learned counsel,
appearing for the petitioner and Sri Alluri Krishnam Raju,
learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents-Bank.
3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
The petitioner joined the then State Bank of
Hyderabad as a Typistclerk on 16.09.1975. He was promoted to
Scale-I on 01.12.1996 and later transferred to the Hussaini-Alam
Branch on 30.03.2001. From 17.07.2003 to 19.12.2003, he
worked as Joint Custodian of Security Forms of the Hussaini
Alam Branch, along with one G.Bhaskara Rao, Deputy Manager.
Subsequently, promoted as Deputy Manager on 01.12.2003.
During his tenure as Joint Custodian of Security forms, 18
security forms (D.D. Blank forms) were lost under his custody.
Consequently, the 3rd respondent issued orders suspending the
petitioner from service vide letter No.G.M.O.S/H/IOC/10236,
dated 20.12.2003. Later, the Assistant General Manager (Region-
I) called for his explanation vide Lr.No.R.1(H)/Gr.1/5219, dated
06.01.2004. Parallelly, a criminal case was filed against him,
and the Vigilance Department and Police took him for
questioning. Since the petitioner could not give any explanation
to the Disciplinary Authority, a chargesheet was issued against
him vide Lr.No.DPD/530, dated 26.06.2004. He neither gave any
reply to the chargesheet nor attended the enquiry. Based on
the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, the disciplinary
authority sent a notice calling for his remarks on the proposed
action of dismissing him from service vide Lr.No.DPD/1628,
dated 11.02.2005. As the petitioner could not submit any reply
to the said notice, the disciplinary authority passed orders
dismissing him from service with effect from 18.03.2005.
Meanwhile, the criminal case was handed over to the C.B.I. and
based on the chargesheet filed by the CBI authorities before the
Special Court for CBI Cases, the case was numbered as
C.C.No.33 of 2007, and the petitioner was convicted on
15.11.2017 for the offences mentioned therein. On appeal, this
Court suspended the sentence, and he was enlarged on bail. As
a consequence of dismissal from service, the petitioner is not
eligible for service pension and gratuity. However, in terms of
various types of Pension Schemes available under the State Bank
of Hyderabad (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995, the
petitioner made a representation dated 06.01.2015 seeking to
grant compassionate allowance as per Regulation No.31 of the
State Bank of Hyderabad (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995.
However, the 2nd respondent rejected the said representation vide
proceedings No.F/140390/PPG/38, dated 11.05.2017.
Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed the present writ
petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner made a representation to the 2nd respondent through
the proper channel on 06.01.2015. On receipt of the petitioner's
representation, the respondent office, in the letter dated
07.04.2015, called for service particulars, from the Manager,
Hussaini Alam Branch, and the petitioner was asked to appear
before the Bank Medical officer Dr.R.P.Mahendra. The said
Officer directed the petitioner to undergo a few medical tests,
which the petitioner did on 08.06.2015 and submitted the test
reports to the 4th respondent. Thereafter, the petitioner filed
W.P.No.33135 of 2016 before this Court, seeking a direction to
the 2nd respondent to dispose of his representation. This Court
disposed of the said writ petition by observing as follows :-
"Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the respondent
authorities to take a decision on the claim of the
petitioner and pass appropriate orders as warranted
by law, duly assigning the reasons in support of the
decision and the decision should be communicated to
the petitioner within a period of four weeks from a
date of receipt of a copy of this order."
5. Since the 2nd respondent had not taken any decision
on the representation made by the petitioner, he has approached
this Court by way of filing C.C.No.1382 of 2017. Subsequently,
the petitioner received a letter Lr.No.F/140390/PPG/38, dated
11.05.2017, issued by the 2nd respondent, rejecting his request
for Compassionate Allowance. As a result, this Court closed the
said Contempt Case. Aggrieved by the order, dated 11.05.2017,
passed by the 2nd respondent rejecting his request for a grant of
compassionate allowance, the present writ petition is filed.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner is entitled to grant of compassionate allowance
as per Regulation 31 of the State Bank of Hyderabad (Employees)
Pension Regulations, 1995, which reads as follows: -
"Regulation 31:
Compassionate Allowance: (1) An employee who is dismissed or
removed or terminated from service shall forfeit his pension:
Provided that the authority higher than the authority competent
to dismiss or remove or terminate his service May, if:-
i) Such dismissal, removal or termination is on or after the 1st
November 1993; and
ii) The case is deserving of special consideration sanction a
compassionate allowance not exceeding two-thirds of the
pension
Which would have been admissible to him on the basis of the
qualifying service rendered up to the date of his dismissal,
removal or termination.
(2) the compassionate allowance sanctioned under the provision
to sub-regulation shall not be less than the amount of minimum
pension payable under regulation 35 of these regulations as
follows :-
A. Superannuation Pension
B. Voluntary retirement pension
C. Invalid Pension
D. Compassionate Allowance
E. Premature retirement pension
F. Compulsory retirement pension
G. Provisional pension
H. Family pension
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits
that the dismissed employees are entitled to compassionate
allowance in order to save them from poverty, hunger and death,
and the salient features of Compassionate Allowance are as
follows :-
a. Such dismissal, removal or termination is on or after 1-11-
1993.
b. Compassionate allowance not exceeding two-thirds of the
pension which would have been admissible to him on the
basis of qualifying service rendered up to the date of his
dismissal, removal or termination.
c. The compassionate allowance sanctioned should not be less
than the amount of minimum pension.
d. In this case, the commutation shall become absolute on the
date of the medical certificate given by the medical officer
approved by the bank.
8. While relying upon the aforementioned Regulation,
learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the employee,
who was removed from service, is eligible for compassionate
allowance. He also stressed that the petitioner has a vulnerable
financial background, which deserves sympathy, failing which
the petitioner and his family would be subjected to poverty. He,
therefore, prayed this Court to treat the petitioner's case as
deserving of special consideration and direct the respondent
authorities to pay compassionate allowance to the petitioner.
9. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the
respondents-Bank filed counter and stated that the
Compassionate Allowance cannot be sought as a matter of right.
Proviso to Regulation 31 provides for the sanction of
compassionate allowance, only if the case is deserved of special
consideration and not otherwise. Therefore, it is for the
petitioner to demonstrate and satisfy this Court that though his
case deserves special consideration for sanction of compassionate
allowance, the Competent Authority refused to sanction the
same. He further submitted that as there are serious allegations
of misappropriation of funds against the petitioner, which
resulted in the petitioner's conviction, he is not entitled for grant
of compassionate allowance, as a matter of right. Therefore, the
respondent authorities have rightly dismissed the petitioner from
service.
10. In support of his contention, learned Standing
Counsel for the respondents-Bank relied upon a decision of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in MAHINDER DUTT SHARMA Vs. UNION
OF INDIA AND OTHERS 1, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held
as follows :-
"14. In our considered view, the determination of a claim
based under Rule 41 of the Pension Rules, 1972, will
necessarily have to be sieved through an evaluation based on
a series of distinct considerations, some of which are
illustratively being expressed hereunder:-
(i) Was the act of the delinquent, which resulted in the
infliction of the punishment of dismissal or removal from
service, an act of moral turpitude? An act of moral turpitude, is
an act which has an inherent quality of baseness, vileness or
depravity with respect to a concerned person's duty towards
another, or to the society in general. In criminal law, the
phrase is used generally to describe a conduct which is
contrary to community standards of justice, honesty and good
morals. Any debauched, degenerate or evil behaviour would
fall in this classification.
(ii) Was the act of the delinquent, which resulted in the
infliction of the punishment of dismissal or removal from
service, an act of dishonesty towards his employer? Such an
action of dishonesty would emerge from a behaviour which is
untrustworthy, deceitful and insincere, resulting in prejudice
to the interest of the employer. This could emerge from an
unscrupulous, untrustworthy and crooked behaviour, which
aims at cheating the employer. Such an act may or may not be
(2014) 11 Supreme Court Cases 684
aimed at personal gains. It may be aimed at benefiting a third
party, to the prejudice of the employer.
(iii) Was the act of the delinquent, which resulted in the
infliction of the punishment of dismissal or removal from
service, an act designed for personal gains, from the
employer? This would involve acts of corruption, fraud or
personal profiteering, through impermissible means by
misusing the responsibility bestowed in an employee by an
employer. And would include, acts of double dealing or
racketeering, or the like. Such an act may or may not be aimed
at causing loss to the employer. The benefit of the delinquent,
could be at the peril and prejudice of a third party.
(iv) Was the act of the delinquent, which resulted in the
infliction of the punishment of dismissal or removal from
service, aimed at deliberately harming a third party interest?
Situations hereunder would emerge out of acts of disservice
causing damage, loss, prejudice or even anguish to third
parties, on account of misuse of the employee's authority to
control, regulate or administer activities of third parties.
Actions of dealing with similar issues differently, or in an
iniquitous manner, by adopting double standards or by foul
play, would fall in this category.
(v) Was the act of the delinquent, which resulted in the
infliction of the punishment of dismissal or removal from
service, otherwise unacceptable, for the conferment of the
benefits flowing out of Rule 41 of the Pension Rules, 1972?
Illustratively, any action which is considered as depraved,
perverted, wicked, treacherous or the like, as would disentitle
an employee for such compassionate consideration.
15. While evaluating the claim of a dismissed (or removed from
service) employee, for the grant of compassionate allowance,
the rule postulates a window for hope, "...if the case is
deserving of special consideration...". Where the delinquency
leading to punishment, falls in one of the five classifications
delineated in the foregoing paragraph, it would ordinarily
disentitle an employee from such compassionate
consideration. An employee who falls in any of the above five
categories, would therefore ordinarily not be a deserving
employee, for the grant of compassionate allowance. In a
situation like this, the deserving special consideration, will
have to be momentous. It is not possible to effectively define
the term "deserving special consideration" used in Rule 41 of
the Pension Rules, 1972. We shall therefore not endeavour
any attempt in the said direction. Circumstances deserving
special consideration, would ordinarily be unlimited, keeping
in mind unlimited variability of human environment. But
surely where the delinquency leveled and proved against the
punished employee, does not fall in the realm of
misdemeanour illustratively categorized in the foregoing
paragraph, it would be easier than otherwise, to extend such
benefit to the punished employee, of course, subject to
availability of factors of compassionate consideration."
11. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-Bank
also relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
REGIONAL MANAGER, U.P.S.R.T.C, ETAWAH AND OTHERS Vs.
HOTI LAL AND ANOTHER 2, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held
as follows:
"If the charged employee holds a position of trust
where honesty and integrity are inbuilt requirements of
functioning, held, the matter should be dealt with iron
hands and not leniently."
12. In retaliation to the above said contention of the
learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-Bank, learned
counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's case
deserves for a grant of compassionate allowance, as he belongs to
S.C. community and had neither friends nor relatives to help him
to come out of the said financial distress. He further submits
that none of the family members of the petitioner are employed
and the children of the petitioner are still prosecuting their
studies, and his wife is suffering from ill-health. Therefore, the
petitioner is in dire need of financial assistance from the bank, in
which he rendered 28 years unblemished record of service with
due diligence and devotion. Learned counsel for the petitioner,
therefore, requested the respondent authorities to treat the
(2003) 3 SCC 605
petitioner's case as a special case for the grant of compassionate
allowance.
13. The principal allegation involving the petitioner
pertains to his role in fraudulently encashing eight (8) demand
drafts aggregating to Rs.3.97 Crores at New Delhi and four (04)
other demand drafts aggregating to Rs.3.20 Crores, which were
returned unpaid by Ashram road Branch, Ahmedabad, and
Service Branch, New Delhi, after seeking confirmation of non-
issuance from Hussaini Alam Branch, from out of eighteen (18)
demand draft forms, which were missing from the said Branch
bearing signature of the petitioner. The particulars of the said
demand draft forms, which are encashed and returned are
annexed to the charge-sheet as Annexure-I and Annexure-II,
respectively. The fate of six other demand draft forms remains
unknown.
14. In the instant case, being the custodian of the
security forms and while dealing with public money, the
petitioner is expected to adhere to the systems and procedures
while handling and holding joint custody of the security forms.
However, while in joint custody of the security forms, the
petitioner has removed 18 blank demand draft forms and
committed fraud, resulting in a huge loss to a tune of Rs.3.97
crores to the respondent Bank. From the said conduct of the
petitioner, it is clear that he had failed to discharge his duties
with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and due diligence as
expected from a bank officer. Therefore, the delinquency
committed by the petitioner falls in five illustrations demarcated
by the Hon'ble Apex Court in MAHINDER DUTT SHARMA's case
(1 supra), thereby disentitling him from the grant of
compassionate allowance. Therefore, the respondent Bank
authorities are justified in imposing the harshest punishment of
dismissal from service against the petitioner and rejecting the
case of the petitioner for grant of compassionate allowance.
There is no illegality or arbitrariness in the said decision taken by
the respondent bank authorities. Further, it is not a fit case to
grant compassionate allowance to the petitioner as postulated
under Regulation 31 of the State Bank of Hyderabad (Employees)
Pension Regulations, 1995. Therefore, there are no merits in the
writ petition, and the same is liable to be dismissed.
15. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order
as to costs.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if
any, shall stand closed.
______________________________________
NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J
16.12.2023
Note:
L.R.copy to be marked
(B/o)
Prv
