JUDGMENT 1. THIS case demonstrates the grim determination of the head of a nationalised bank to compel an employee who, after 42 years of service, retired without there being any disciplinary proceedings initiated against him before or after his retirement, to face death by starvation with the family by withholding the provident Fund, Gratuity and leave encashment benefits amounting in the aggregate to Rs. 2 lakhs for a paltry sum of Rs. 1,738/- alleged to have been drawn by him unauthorisedly as leave fare concession of his wholly decedent, unmarried and sick sister. The extent of the cruelty and caprice, malafides and malevolence, unkindness and unfairness, arbitrary, unreasonable and irresponsible conduct and behaviour of the Chairman of the Bank would be apparent from the records. The manner in which the Chairman ignored the advices of the senior officers, the vengeance with which he proceeded, the ill-conceived delight he derived from the suffering of a person, who did not have any pensionary benefit and was solely dependent on the P. F. and gratuity and leave encashment benefit for the livelihood of his family and himself. 2. THE petitioner was initially appointed as a Clerk on 8/4/1944 in the erstwhile comilla Banking Corporation Ltd. Thereafter he was promoted in the post of Officer Grade iii. In 1976, he was promoted as Officer Grade i and was acting as Branch Manager in the inter Continental Hotel Branch at New Delhi. The said Grade 1 Office was converted into middle Management III and he was promoted to the post of Deputy Chief Officer in Middle management II in the year 1984 and posted at zonal Office, New Delhi. He was transferred to the Regional Office, North India Region, new Delhi as Deputy Regional Manager of the said Bank. He retired from service on 31st december, 1986 as the Deputy Regional manager, North India Region, New Delhi. After the retirement of the petitioner, he was not paid his retirement benefit. Several representations were made but nothing was done. He was transferred to the Regional Office, North India Region, new Delhi as Deputy Regional Manager of the said Bank. He retired from service on 31st december, 1986 as the Deputy Regional manager, North India Region, New Delhi. After the retirement of the petitioner, he was not paid his retirement benefit. Several representations were made but nothing was done. After seven months of his retirement, the petitioner received a communication dated 17/19th august, 1987 issued by the Deputy General manager, Personnel, informing the petitioner that the authorities of the Bank were unable to settle the retirement dues of the petitioner as the petitioner had given an allegedly false declaration about the monthly income of his dependent sister Miss Chhaya Dey knowing fully well that her total income exceeded Rs. 250. 00 per month at the time of obtaining advance against Leave Fare Concession for his sister. It was also stated therein that the payment of the petitioner's retirement dues might be considered only upon his admitting the lapse for the alleged deliberate suppression of facts about his sister's actual monthly income and making good the loss caused to the Bank. The petitioner denied the said charges. Since the petitioner has not been paid his retirement benefits, he could not repay his loan obtained for house building and thus incurring the liability to pay interest against such loan. His representations were not considered at all and ultimately the petitioner moved this Court in november, 1987. Affidavits have been filed. The records have been produced. Elaborate arguments have been made by Mr. P. P. Ginwala, learned advocate appearing for the Bank. But before I advert to the facts, I shall only refer to one of the communications made by the Bank on 17/ 19th August, 1987 which reads as follows: "sri. M. M. Dey, ex-Dy. Regional Manager united Bank of India c-1369, Chittaranjan Park, new Delhi - 110019. Dear Sir. This has reference to your representation dated 6th April 1987 addressed to the hon'ble Minister of State for Personnel, department of Grievances and Pensions and pensioners' Welfare, Government oi india, New Delhi. 2. In reply to your representation, we write to inform you that we are unable to settle your retirement dues as you had given a false declaration about the monthly income of your dependent sister, Smt. Chhaya Dey knowing fully well that her total income exceeded Rs. 2. In reply to your representation, we write to inform you that we are unable to settle your retirement dues as you had given a false declaration about the monthly income of your dependent sister, Smt. Chhaya Dey knowing fully well that her total income exceeded Rs. 250/- p. m. at the time of obtaining advance against l. F. C. for your sister. The payment of your retirement dues may, however, be considered only upon your admitting the lapse for deliberate suppression of fact about your sister's actual monthly income and making good the loss caused to the bank. Yours faithfully, sd: Illegible dy. Gen. Manager (P)" For the alleged false claim lodged by the petitioner, he already received to the extent of rs. 1,738/- in excess of his entitlement. But, for the said sum of Rs. 1,738/- his entire gratuity, provident fund dues and leave encashment benefit have been withheld. 3. THE facts of the case are as follows : on 5th April, 1986 the petitioner made an application for Leave Fare Concession in the prescribed Form of the Bank wherein the petitioner declared that Miss Chhaya Dey, his sister, was wholly dependent on the petitioner. The Regional Manager, North India Region of the said Bank granted Leave Fare Concession to the petitioner by the letter dated 9th April, 1986. The petitioner subsequently submitted the journey completion certificate and also produced the documents showing the final adjustment of the advance granted by the bank. On 30th December, 1986 the day before the retirement of the petitioner from service, the petitioner received a telephone call from Sri samarendra Dasgupta, the then Deputy general Manager, who wanted to know whether the income of the petitioner's dependent sister, Miss Chhaya Dey, was Rs. 250/-only. The petitioner confirmed the same and informed that the top Management had already enquired into the matter and was informed by the petitioner that the income of the Petitioner's sister was only Rs. 250/- per month as she was getting an honorarium from shyama Prasad Vidyalaya, Lodhi Estate, New delhi-3. It had been alleged that the petitioner's dependent sister was doing part-time job elsewhere. The petitioner denied the said allegation upon which the Deputy General manager of the Bank asked the petitioner to submit an affidavit through the then Regional manager, North India Region, stating the source of income of the dependent sister in april, 1986. It had been alleged that the petitioner's dependent sister was doing part-time job elsewhere. The petitioner denied the said allegation upon which the Deputy General manager of the Bank asked the petitioner to submit an affidavit through the then Regional manager, North India Region, stating the source of income of the dependent sister in april, 1986. The petitioner asked for a written order for submission of such an affidavit to which the Regional Manager concerned asked the petitioner not to insist on such a written order and directed him to follow the verbal order to file an affidavit attested by a Notary public as this was required for the purpose of justifying the case of the petitioner. The contents of the affidavit directed to be filed were also dictated by the then Deputy General manager through the Regional Manager, north India Region. On the day before retirement the petitioner complied with the directives of the then Deputy General Manager and submitted the affidavit through the Regional manager, which was eventually sent to the head Office of the Bank through Telex. The petitioner reiterated in the said affidavit what he had been stating from the beginning, that is to say, that the petitioner's sister Miss Chhaya dey was working in Shyama Prasad Mukherjee school during April, 1986 on a monthly honorarium of Rs. 250/- and that she had no other source of income from anywhere else whatsoever. Another directive was given to the petitioner by the Deputy General Manager through the Regional Manager directing the petitioner to submit another affidavit certifying the income of the petitioner's sister in June-July, 1986 for which leave fare concession was claimed by the petitioner. In compliance with the said directive the petitioner submitted another affidavit on plain paper attested by a notary Public repeating what he had stated in his earlier affidavits. Thereafter, no further steps were taken and the petitioner was allowed to retire from Bank service on 31st december, 1986. After a lapse of about 4 weeks from the date of retirement of the petitioner, the petitioner on 28th January 1987 wrote to the regional Manager, North India Region of the bank, that in terms of the letter dated 20th june 1986 the petitioner applied for leave encashment for 163 days privilege leave due to his credit by his letter dated 29th December 1986, but no step was taken by the authority concerned. The petitioner also requested to expedite payment of retirement benefits which include gratuity, provident fund and leave encashment. After about 7 months from the date of retirement, the petitioner received a communication dated 17/19th August, 1987 issued by the Deputy General Manager, Personnel, with reference to the representation of the petitioner dated 6th April 1987 addressed to the hon'ble Minister of State for Personnel, department of Grievances and Pensions and pensioners' Welfare, Government of India. New Delhi wherein the petitioner was informed that the authorities of the Bank were unable to settle the retirement dues as the petitioner had given an alleged false declaration about the monthly income of his dependent sister, Miss Chhaya Dey, knowing well that her total income exceeded Rs. 250/- per month at the time of obtaining advance against leave fare concession for his sister. It was, however, mentioned in the said communication dated 17/19th August, 1987 that the payment of the petitioner's retirement dues might be considered only upon his admitting the lapse for the alleged deliberate suppression of facts about his sister's actual monthly income and making good the loss caused to the Bank. I have already set out the said communication. The petitioner filed two affidavits dated 30th December 1986 reiterating the stand taken by the petitioner and thereafter the authorities concerned maintained complete silence in the matter after the date of retirement of the petitioner till the issuance of the communication dated 17/19th August, 1987 and as such the petitioner thought that the authorities of the Bank were satisfied with the declarations given by the petitioner by furnishing the said two affidavits. According to the petitioner the purported communication dated 17/19th August, 1987 containing a direction to admit the alleged lapse of deliberate suppression of facts about the actual monthly income of the petitioner's sister and making good the loss allegedly caused to the Bank is not only unwarranted and uncalled for but the same is also without jurisdiction and demonstrates administrative bias. In the affidavit which has been filed by the respondents it has been stated in paragraph 5, sub para (f) as follows: "f) On the basis of an anonymous complaint against the petitioner the Vigilence department of the Bank made an investigation into certain allegations, namely -i) that a T. T. for Rs. In the affidavit which has been filed by the respondents it has been stated in paragraph 5, sub para (f) as follows: "f) On the basis of an anonymous complaint against the petitioner the Vigilence department of the Bank made an investigation into certain allegations, namely -i) that a T. T. for Rs. 10,000/- had been twice credited in the account of M/s. Mitra prakashan when the petitioner was the manager, Janpath Branch: ii) that the petitioner had falsely declared that his sister Smt. Chhaya Dey was wholly dependent on him in claiming LFC: iii) that a D. R. I. loan had been sanctioned to a party from the Janpath Branch instead of the Chittaranjan Park Branch in New delhi where the party actually resided. (g) After calling for the petitioner's explanation and further considering the matter the respondent Bank decided that item (i)above was the result of a genuine mistake and item (iii) was an irregularity, but as there was no improper motive on the petitioner's part in either case he did not merit disciplinary action for the same at the end of his carrier. However, item (ii) above if proved would constitute serious misconduct and would be a grave breach of the obligations undertaken by him under the contract of employment warranting disciplinary action and the imposition of a major penalty. However, the senior officers of the respondent bank were not inclined to believe on the materials then before them that the petitioner had made any false declaration, but enquiries were still continuing. (h) Under Regulation 20 (3) (c) of the united Bank of India Officers Service regulations 1979, an officer under suspension on a charge of misconduct shall not be retired or permitted to retire on his reaching the date of a compulsory retirement but shall be retained in service until the enquiry into the charges is concluded and a final order passed thereon. Accordingly, as the date of his retirement was fast approaching the respondent bank prepared an order of suspension on the charge of making a false claim in respect of LFC and ah order not permitting him to retire but retaining him in service and sent an officer to Delhi to serve the same on him on 30th december, 1986. Accordingly, as the date of his retirement was fast approaching the respondent bank prepared an order of suspension on the charge of making a false claim in respect of LFC and ah order not permitting him to retire but retaining him in service and sent an officer to Delhi to serve the same on him on 30th december, 1986. However, the respondent Bank requested the petitioner to make affidavits declaring that at the relevant time (April and June/july, 1986) his sister Smt. Chhaya Dey had no income from any other source in excess of Rs. 250/- per month receivable by way of honorarium and indicate that if the petitioner did so the order of suspension would not be served and he would be allowed to retire on 31st December, 1986. Accordingly, the petitioner made the said two affidavits on 30th December, 1986 and in reliance on the said affidavits the Bank did not serve the said orders on him and he was allowed to retire on 31st December, 1986. i) It subsequently came to light on further investigation that the petitioner's said sister had, at all material times from march, 1981 to December, 1986, a Savings bank Account No. 8522 at the respondent bank's Janpath Branch in which interest was credited from time to time. Hereto annexed and marked 'a' in a Bundle are copies of the Account Opening form dated 26th March, 1981 and of the relevant ledger account from 1983 to December, 1986. She also had a fixed deposit account and a Recurring Deposit Account, both of them jointly with the petitioner but with her name first, on which also interest was payable to her. This was in addition to the honorarium of Rs. 250/- per month received by her as a client. Accordingly her income exceeded Rs. 250/- per month and the petitioner was not entitled to claim LFC in respect of her. As a result of the false claim made by the petitioner, he received LFC to the extent of Rs. 1738/- in excess of his entitlement. 250/- per month received by her as a client. Accordingly her income exceeded Rs. 250/- per month and the petitioner was not entitled to claim LFC in respect of her. As a result of the false claim made by the petitioner, he received LFC to the extent of Rs. 1738/- in excess of his entitlement. (j) If the petitioner had not supported his false claim by his false affidavits, the respondent Bank would have suspended him and not permitted him to retire on 31st december, 1986 and, after holding disciplinary proceedings, in the absence of a satisfactory explanation, would probably have imposed a major penalty on him by reducing him to a lower grade or post or to a lower stage in his time-scale. As a result thereof, the Bank's liability to pay him gratuity would have been reduced. The bank has thus suffered damage as a result of his false affidavits and is entitled to claim damages from the petitioner and to set off such claim against his claim for retiring benefits and encashment of leave. (k) In spite of the foregoing the Bank was (and still is) prepared to pay the petitioner his retirement benefits and leave encashment in full after deducting only the said excess LFC of Rs. 1,738/- on his admitting his lapse and apolozising for the same. The bank has to insist on this principle as otherwise its other employees would be emboldened to make false claims for LFC on the eve of retirement". 4. IN reply, the petitioner said that the petitioner was appointed in erstwhile Comilla bank Corporation in 1944 which was subsequently merged with the United Bank of India in 1950 and thus the petitioner became an employee of the United Bank of India on such merger. No agreement was entered into by and between the Bank and the petitioner at any point of time during the course of his long period of service. The petitioner was a salaried employee of the United Bank of India which is a Government of India Undertaking and its officers are public servants. The petitioner further stated that the petitioner was allowed to retire from service on completion of the age of retirement in the normal course and as such the petitioner is entitled to the retiring benefits payable by the Bank to the petitioner by virtue of the services rendered by the petitioner. The petitioner further stated that the petitioner was allowed to retire from service on completion of the age of retirement in the normal course and as such the petitioner is entitled to the retiring benefits payable by the Bank to the petitioner by virtue of the services rendered by the petitioner. By making some false and frivolous allegations and by bringing certain charges for the first time the Bank is trying to create a subterfuge so as to side-track the real issue in a most illegal and malafide manner. The petitioner also stated that he had no knowledge about the anonymous complaint as also the investigation which had been made behind the back of the petitioner. The petitioner further stated that the Respondent bank could have levelled charge against the petitioner while he was in service but at this stage no charge can be brought against the petitioner. 5. THE petitioner further stated that by the letter dated 5/7th January 1987 the respondent bank assured the petitioner that the amount of gratuity payable to him would be released only after getting vacant possession of the Bank's quarter in occupation of the petitioner. With due permission of the Bank the petitioner retained the possession of the quarter for two months after retirement and thereafter delivered vacant possession to the Bank but the respondent Bank did not fulfil the assurance given in the letter dated 5/7th January 1987 and till the date of the application did not pay the gratuity. The petitioner at page 32 has stated that the petitioner has failed to pay the house building loan where simple interest at 6% per annum is charged for by the Bank, as no payment whatsoever towards retirement benefits has been made by the Bank to the petitioner as yet. The house building loan taken by the petitioner is required to be credited from the gratuity payable to the petitioner according to the usual terms. 6. THE petitioner has stated that the respondent Bank has brought against the petitioner many new allegations or charges for the first time which were never communicated to the petitioner at any point of time prior to his retirement. I shall now refer to the records which would unmistakably demonstrate how malafide was the stand of the Chairman of the Bank and how unfairly and unreasonably the Bank proceeded at the dictates of the Chairman. I shall now refer to the records which would unmistakably demonstrate how malafide was the stand of the Chairman of the Bank and how unfairly and unreasonably the Bank proceeded at the dictates of the Chairman. An anonymous complaint was made against the petitioner, inter alia, regarding obtaining L. F. C. of the petitioner's sister. The Deputy Chief officer, Vigilance Department made an enquiry and submitted a report to the General manager and Chief Vigilance Officer on 15th october, 1986. It was, inter alia, stated in the said report as follows: "regarding inclusion as member and drawing reimbursement against L. F. C. for his sister, who is stated to be an employee of school, we made enquiries with the respective authorities, who confirmed in writing that Smt. Chhaya Dey is working as G. B. Fund Clerk with honorarium of Rs. 250/-As Smt. Dey is receiving honorarium and not salary, we are not sure whether Smt. Dey can be included by Sri M. M. Dey as his dependent for availment of L. F. C. We are referring the matter to Personnel department for their opinion. " It may be mentioned that on 1st October, 1986 the Assistant General Manager (Personnel) wrote to the petitioner regarding sanction of D. R. I. loan. In the said letter there was no mention about the drawing of L. F. C. for his sister. On 27th October, 1986 the petitioner replied to the said letter stating that he had left janpath Branch about two and half years ago and accordingly it is not possible for him to recollect the details about the loans stated to have been sanctioned by him. He, therefore, requested for inspection of the relevant documents of the branch concerned. The petitioner thereafter addressed a letter dated 17th/18th November, 1986 to the Assistant General Manager (Personnel) stating therein that he did not receive reply to his letter dated 27th October, 1986 regarding inspection of the documents. That letter was received by the Bank on 20th November, 1986. On 21st November, 1986 a telex was sent by the chief Officer (Personnel) to the following effect : "please advise Sri M. M. Dey, D. R. M. to submit his explanation to the show cause letter dated 1st October, 1986 within three days and the same should reach this office on or about 27th November, 1986. Inspection of the document cannot be allowed at present. Inspection of the document cannot be allowed at present. " An enquiry was also made and a report was submitted on 15th November, 1986 to the chief Vigilance Officer regarding the loan. On 29th November, 1986 the Assistant general Manager (P) wanted to know from the chief Officer, Vigilance Department what steps should be taken against the petitioner as he would be retiring on 31st December, 1986. On 25th November, 1986 the petitioner once again wrote to the Assistant General manager (Personnel) that while he was the manager of Janpath Branch he allowed D. R. I. loan to number of loanees as per guideline of the Bank. It was not possible for him to recollect after a lapse of about three years a particular case and unless he was directed to go through the respective papers it was not possible for him to explain the reason for granting loan. On three grounds an enquiry was initiated against the petitioner. On 1st December, 1986 the Chief Officer, Vigilance Department, wrote to the Assistant General Manager (P)United Bank of India, Head Office. The said letter is as follows: "ref. No. Vig/2/mb/86/4759 december 1,1986 re: Sri M. M. Dey, D. R. M. North India Region kindly refer to your letter No. PD/agm/8913 dt. 29th November, 1986 in the above subject. In this connection we will like to intimate you that the following complaints were investigated by us-1. Twice credit of T. T. of Rs. 10,000/- in the a/c. of M/s. Mitra Prakashan. 2. Availing leave fare concession by Sri dey in respect of his sister who was otherwise employed. 3. Sanctioning of DRI loan to a party from janpath Branch ignoring operational area of the Branch. Thereafter we forwarded our findings to g. M. and C. V. O. which was as under: 1. It was found to be a genuine mistake. The excess credit was reverted on detection. 2. For eligibility of Sri Dey's availing leave fare concession in respect of his sister, we sought the advice of establishment Division, Personnel Deptt. They, vide their letter ESP/lfc/ps/con/5604/86 dt. 24th october 1986, intimated that if the monthly income of Smt. Dey does not exceed Rs. 250/- and if the parents of Sri Dey are not available then Smt. Dey will be eligible for the leave fare concession. They, vide their letter ESP/lfc/ps/con/5604/86 dt. 24th october 1986, intimated that if the monthly income of Smt. Dey does not exceed Rs. 250/- and if the parents of Sri Dey are not available then Smt. Dey will be eligible for the leave fare concession. In the particular case, keeping in view of the letter of Establishment Division, we find that Smt. Dey was eligible for the L. F. C. 3. We did not observe any vigilance angle. However, we wrote a letter to the Regional manager in this respect, copy of which is enclosed herewith. Since, we have received a reply from the Regional Manager, copy of which is also enclosed herewith. Under the circumstances, you will observe that there is no vigilance case against Sri Dey in our department. However, we find that G. M. and C. V. O. vide his telex message dated 22nd September 1986 to Sri K. P. Ramesh Rao, copy ot which was endorsed to G. G. M. (P), advised certain line of action against Sri m. M. Dey. We understand that in compliance with such instructions, you issued a letter of explanation to Sri Dey on 1st october 1986. Inspite of your reminder dt. 21st November 1986, Sri Dey has not yet replied to your explanation. It was advised by the G. M. and C. V. O. to take further action against letter and receipt of reply thereto. Since you have not received any reply we feel that you are not in a position to decide any further action in the matter. If Shri Dey has ignored your lawful order in submitting his explanation, we feel, you may take such action against him as you deem fit and necessary. We have nothing to offer in this respect. " on 4th December 1986 the following note was placed in the file: "note No. PD: DIR:a:62 4. 12. 86 subject: Sri M. M. Dey, Dy. Regional manager, North India Region. Sri Modan Mohon Dey, Dy. Regional manager North India Region was issued with a letter of show cause vide bank's letter No. PD/dir/b/7146/86, dated 1st october 1986 for certain acts of gross irregularities alleged to have been committed by Sri Dey. 2. 12. 86 subject: Sri M. M. Dey, Dy. Regional manager, North India Region. Sri Modan Mohon Dey, Dy. Regional manager North India Region was issued with a letter of show cause vide bank's letter No. PD/dir/b/7146/86, dated 1st october 1986 for certain acts of gross irregularities alleged to have been committed by Sri Dey. 2. The letter of exaplanation was called pursuant to the letter reference No. GM/vig/and/282/86 dated 22nd September 1986 from the General Manager and Chief vigilance Officer to Sri K. P. Ramesh Rao, zonal Manager, U. B. I. 3. Sri M. M. Dey however did not reply to our show cause letter till date. 4. The matter was referred to Vigilance department for consideration of the case and to report to us with their observation. We enclose the letter reference No. Vig/2/nb/86/4759 dated 1st December 1986 addressed by the Chief Officer, Vigilance department to the Asstt. General Manager (P) which will speak for itself. 5. It will kindly be observed from the letter of Vigilance Department that the double credit has since been adjusted and according to them such mistake was genuine. As regards Leave Fare Concession Smt. Dey is entitled to such Leave Fare Concession. 6. Kindly note that Sri Dey is due to retire at the close of business of 31st December 1986. 7. Placed for your observation and decision. (Anjan Chatterjee)Dy. Chief Officer (Discipline)Personnel Department encl. As above dy. GENERAL MANAGER (Personnel)made the following comments: there is no further charge. Allowing a DRI loan to C. R. Park 1500/- is not that big matter. However he may be asked to help realisation of dues. Sd/-Illegible 5/12/86 replied asking for records for verification as it was old over 2 years. " The investigation was made by a private investigator of the bank viz. International bureau of Investigation. The report of the investigation Bureau is as follows: "c. M. MUKHI assistant Commissioner of Police delhi (Retd.)CONFIDENTIAL ref: 16/ibi/ubi december 4, 1986 the Assistant General Manager united Bank of India, nehru Place. N. D. Sub: Miss Chhaya Rani Dey sir, this has reference to the discussions held by the undersigned with you on November 17, 1986 on the above subject. Discreet enquiries were conducted about the subject from various sources in the directorate of Education, old Secretariat office of the Deputy Director Education (South) Defence Colony and the Shyama prasad Vidyalaya, Lodi Estate, New Delhi. Discreet enquiries were conducted about the subject from various sources in the directorate of Education, old Secretariat office of the Deputy Director Education (South) Defence Colony and the Shyama prasad Vidyalaya, Lodi Estate, New Delhi. Result obtained was later re-checked with mrs. Ghosh, Principal of the School on december 3 and 4 to ensure authenticity of the facts being reported below: 1. Education in all the schools in Delhi is regulated in accordance with the provisions of the Delhi School Education Act, 1975 and the rules made thereunder. All the recognised private schools are granted aid to meet various expenses, including salary, allowance and Provident Fund of the sanctioned employees as per the scale laid down under the rules. Aid does not cover extra staff employed by Managing committee of the Private Recognised schools for performance of teaching and clerical duties. Extra staff is paid by the managing Committee on rates, lower than the approved scales. 2. Shyama Prosad Vidyalaya is a private recognised school. It is aided by the Directorate of Education. Its Managing Committee has employed additional staff on wages much below the Govt. scales. It is being run by a Bengali Managing Committee and most of the staff working on honorarium belongs to families of Bengali govt. officials. 3. Miss Chhaya Rani Dey was appointed as governing Body Fund Clerk in July, 1985 at a honorarium of Rs. 200/- per montn with free transport from residence to school and back by Shyama Prosad Vidyalaya Educational Society, Lodi Estate, new Delhi 110003. Her honorarium was raised to Rs. 250/- p. m. on 1st October 1985 and again to Rs. 350/- p. m. on 1st october, 1986 by resolutions passed by the society. She does not possess requisite qualifications and age for appointment as a teacher and/or other suitable post. The principal has confirmed that she has not been granted L. T. C. facility by the society so far. She is not borne on the regular strength of the school. Very truly yours sd/- Illegible. " Thereafter the Zonal Manager addressed a letter to the General Manager (D) and CVO, united Bank of India on 5th December, 1986. The said letter is as follows: "ref. No. ZM/conf/35/3243/86 dgm (P)DOO (DIR) (Shri Anjan Chatterjee)To please see and put up with earlier papers on this cover. Very truly yours sd/- Illegible. " Thereafter the Zonal Manager addressed a letter to the General Manager (D) and CVO, united Bank of India on 5th December, 1986. The said letter is as follows: "ref. No. ZM/conf/35/3243/86 dgm (P)DOO (DIR) (Shri Anjan Chatterjee)To please see and put up with earlier papers on this cover. Sd/-Illegible 8/12/86 shri B. Choudhury, general Manager (D) and CVO 16, Old Court House St., calcutta 700 001. Dear Sir, re: Investigation regarding the claim for Dependant sister's Journey fare by SH. M. M. Dey (DRM, NIR) In his recent LTC application. We had handed over photocopies of the certificates dated 12th July 1985 and 10th september 1986 of Shyama Prasad Vidyalaya Education Society tendered by Sri M. M. Dey with his LTC, to Shri CM. Mukhi asstt. Commissioner of Police (retired)for verificiation. Shri Mukhi's report dated 4th December 1986 (Ref. No. 16/ibi/ubi)is enclosed tor your kind perusal. we give below our observations: shri Mukhi is a respectable retired Police official of the Delhi Police and has been retained by American Express Bank for their investigation. He was also recommended to us by Canara Bank. We had also given to him a few assignments in the past and he had done a satisfactory job with respect thereto. His report may, therefore, be accepted. We note from the report that Miss Chhaya rani Dey (sister of Shri M. M. Dey) was appointed in July 85 as a clerk by the governing Body Fund on a honorarium of rs. 200/- per month. This honorarium was raised to Rs. 250/- per month on 1st October 1985 and again to Rs. 350/- per month from 1st October 1986. In view of the state ments contained in the Annexed Reporter of shri Mukhi, it is possible to employ extra staff at such low rates. The LTC in question was availed by Shri Dey in April/june. 1986, when the honorarium was Rs. 250/-per month. As regards free transport, it may please be noted, it is a customary, privilege extended by schools to their teachers and other staff members to travel free by the school buses meant for the students. We may, th refore, conclude that the certificates tendered by Shri Dey as genuine. Yours faithfully, sd/- Zonal Manager. 250/-per month. As regards free transport, it may please be noted, it is a customary, privilege extended by schools to their teachers and other staff members to travel free by the school buses meant for the students. We may, th refore, conclude that the certificates tendered by Shri Dey as genuine. Yours faithfully, sd/- Zonal Manager. The Regional Manager addressed to the zonal Manager, a confidential letter on 10th december 1986 which is as follows: "confidential sub: T. A. Bill of Shri M. M. Dey, DRM for visiting Gazhiabad and G. T. Road Branch from 14. 11. 85 to 15. 11. 85, 18. 11. 85, 21. 11. 85 to 26. 11. 85 and 28. 11. 85 to 5. 12. 85 as advised by you, the undersigned examined the bills submitted by Sri M. M. Dey, DRM for the above visit. In fact Shri Dey had submitted two T. A. Bills viz. (i) for Rs. 324. 80 and (ii) for Rs. 1544. 00 only. While submitting the first bill DRM (Adm)pointed out to the then R. M. that both haltage and conveyance cannot be paid. And as such, the first bill was initially passed for Rs. 193. 60 only deducting the daily conveyance charged from Delhi to ghaziabad. Subsequently, the original bill amount for Rs. 324. 80 was passed by the then R. M. Mitra with the following remarks: "as discussed, we may pass the bill as a spl. case without creating any precedent as he had to work on holidays and late hours also. Sd/-P. K. Roy 10/12/85" The second bill for Rs. 1544. 00 was also passed by the then R. M. with the following remarks on 9th December 1985:-"allowed as a special case due to urgency of the work and without creating any precedent. Sd/-P. K. Roy 9. 12. 86" yours faithfully sd/- D. K. Bhattacharyya regional Manager nir" 7. ON 10th December, 1986 the Zonal manager wrote a letter to the Asstt. General manager. The said letter is as follows: "re: Payment of Haltage and Conveyance to Shri M. M. Dey, Dy. Regional manager for visiting Ghaziabad Branch. Ref: Your Telex Msg. No. 8228-8. 12. 86 as requested by you, we are sending herewith our RM's confidential report dated 10th December 1986 in respect of Item No. 2 (monetary benefits) of our letter No. ZON/conf/35/2174/86 dated 13th September 1986. Regional manager for visiting Ghaziabad Branch. Ref: Your Telex Msg. No. 8228-8. 12. 86 as requested by you, we are sending herewith our RM's confidential report dated 10th December 1986 in respect of Item No. 2 (monetary benefits) of our letter No. ZON/conf/35/2174/86 dated 13th September 1986. In view of what is stated in the enclosed report, primafacie the previous RM, NIR, Mr. P. K. Roy has erred in allowing the haltage and conveyance to shri M. M. Dey as a special case. " On 16th December 1986 the Chief Officer, personnel Department wrote to the petitioner as follows:- "the Chairman and Managing Director of the Bank requests the pleasure of your company at a farewell meeting to be held on 29th November 1986 at 3. 00 P. M. at head Office, on the eve of your retirement from the Bank's service at the close of business on 31st December 1986. " On the one hand it was proposed to give him a farewell, on the other investigation proceedings for suppression and disciplinary action were also in contemplation. On 27th December 1986 the Deputy General Manager (Personnel) submitted a note to the Top Management Committee. The said note and the remarks made thereon are set out hereinafter:- "top Management Committee (Since Chairman and MD and GM (D) will remain out of station in next T. M. C. it is being placed by circulation for kind approval of the T. M. C.)Sd/-Illegible 24. 12. 86 re: Sri M. M. Dey, Dy. Regional manager, North India Region, new Delhi. Sri Madan Mohan Dey is presently attached to North India Regional Office, New Delhi as Dy. Regional Manager and he is due to retire from the service of the bank at the close of 31st December 1986. The bank had received the following complaints against Sri Dey: (i) Twice credit of T. T. of Rs. 10,000/- in the a/c M/s. Mitra Prakashan with Janpath branch. (ii) Availment of L. F. C. in respect of his sister who is otherwise employed. (iii) Sanctioning of D. R. I. Loan from Janpath Branch ignoring operational area of the branch. (iv) Creation of bad advance at Janpath branch viz. Krishna Hinges and subsequent transfer of the said a/c. to Connaught circus Branch for getting further loan sanctioned. 3. (ii) Availment of L. F. C. in respect of his sister who is otherwise employed. (iii) Sanctioning of D. R. I. Loan from Janpath Branch ignoring operational area of the branch. (iv) Creation of bad advance at Janpath branch viz. Krishna Hinges and subsequent transfer of the said a/c. to Connaught circus Branch for getting further loan sanctioned. 3. The complaints in the item No. i, ii and iii having been investigated by the Vigilance department, they have not found any case against Sri Dey having any Vigilance angle. However, in regard to sanctioning of D. R. I. Loan, the bank has issued a letter of showcause to Sri Dey. The Regional Manager, North india Region, has informed us that the said d. R. I. Loans were given under mass loan scheme as per Government direction and in his opinion the loanees were prima facie eligible for the loans. However, the matter having been carefully examined, Sri Dey has since been asked to help realisation of the said d. R. I. Loan sanctioned by him from Janpath branch. 4. In regard to the availment of L. F. C. in respect of his sister who is otherwise employed, the Zonal Manager, New Delhi in the meantime got the matter investigated by one International Bureau of Investigation and has come to the finding that the sister of Sri Dey is employed in a school with a honorarium of Rs. 250/- per month. As per rules of the bank, if the monthly income of his sister does not exceed Rs. 250/- and if her parents are not alive, then Sri Dey is eligible to claim L. F. C. for his said sister treating her to be dependant on him. 5. Regarding the complaint appearing in the item No. iv, the Zonal Manager, New delhi has informed us that the a/c of Sri krishna Hinges with Janpath Branch is a sick a/c and the transfer of the said a/c to Connaught circus Branch was approved by Sri P. K. Roy, the then Regional Manager of North India region. However, a letter was addressed to the Manager, Janpath Br. giving permission to the said transfer of the said a/c. signed by the regional Manager and was signed by Sri Dey at the bottom of the Regional Manager's signature. However, a letter was addressed to the Manager, Janpath Br. giving permission to the said transfer of the said a/c. signed by the regional Manager and was signed by Sri Dey at the bottom of the Regional Manager's signature. Further on 23rd December 1986 both the zonal Manager and the Regional Manager new Delhi had a discussion with the undersigned when both of them are of the opinion that the said advance is very much in existence and the party has asked tor enhancement of the further limit. They are also of the opinion that they have not found involvement of Sri Dey in the irregularities of the said account. 6. In regard to the complaint in the item no. v, the Zonal Manager has since informed us that the haltage and conveyance was sanctioned to Sri Dey by Sri P. K. Roy, erstwhile regional Manager as a special case. In view of the above since it appears that there is no case against Sri Dey having any vigilance angle, it is suggested that the matter may be treated as closed and Sri Dey be permitted to retire from the service of the bank on the scheduled date. Sd/- Illegible dy. General Manager (Personnel)" The said note was placed before the Chairman and Managing Director with the following note made by the General Manager. "c. M. D. To kingly see. The Z. M. (Delhi's) report on further investigations arrived at about the status of Miss Chhaya Rani Dey, sister of Sri M. M. Dey, D. R. M., is flagged 'a' in the file placed herewith. It is observed that at the relevant point of time Miss C. R. Dey was drawing an amount of Rs. 250/- p. m. from the school where she was engaged and in view of the express provisions of the officers' Service Regulations of the Bank, she is eligible for being treated as dependant to Shri M. M. Dey for the purpose of claiming L. F. C. in respect of her. In the circumstances, the case against Shri m. M. Dey may be closed and he be allowed to retire in the usual course. Placed for consideration. Sd/- Illegible 27. 12. 86" On the said note the following observations were made by the Chairman and Managing director; sd/- K. D. Nayar 29. 12. 1986 i) Please refer to my remarks. ii) Is his sister not employed. Placed for consideration. Sd/- Illegible 27. 12. 86" On the said note the following observations were made by the Chairman and Managing director; sd/- K. D. Nayar 29. 12. 1986 i) Please refer to my remarks. ii) Is his sister not employed. If so how has vigilance not found any case against her. iii) What prompted him to transfer the A/c. to C. Circus? Why did C. Circus Branch accept the A/c? iv) Also obtain affidavit from the officer and his sister. v) The sister was perhaps in receipt of two honorarium. That is what Sri Ghosh told me. If she was not in receipt of any other income by way of interest, dividend, rent or another honorarium we ought to be told so by the Z. M. Somebody must take responsibility of gibing, no abnormality detect", NAD certificate after fully investigating the fact Sri Ghosh told me that she was receiving two honorarium, one from school and another from the Board or another fund. Now there is no mention of that and the case is deemed to be closed. I would not permit any hush closure. 1 am dissatisfied the way the Vigilance Department is working. More than once I stated two honorarium, but I see no mention. I am being harrassed and so is the accused. If there are two honorarium I am being harrassed unnecessarily, and if only one the accused is being harrassed unnecessarily. We should have been categorical one way or the other. " on 30th December, 1986 the Dy. Chief officer, Disciplinary Division submitted the following note to the General Manager and chief Vigilance Officer: "sri M. M. Dey, Dy. Regional Manager north India Region, New Delhi. Kindly refer to the Note dated 24th December 1986 placed before the Chairman and managing Director of the bank with regard to certain complaints against Sri M. M. Dey and recommendations made by the General manager and Chief Vigilance Officer and dy. General Manager (Personnel) of the bank. 2. We enclose a Xerox copy of the above note wherein it will appear that the Chairman and Managing Director has made certain observations. 3. General Manager (Personnel) of the bank. 2. We enclose a Xerox copy of the above note wherein it will appear that the Chairman and Managing Director has made certain observations. 3. In the context of the observations made by the Chairman and Managing Director, if the existence of Vigilance case against Sri dey cannot be ruled out fully and categorically, it has been advised verbally by the chairman and Managing Director to place sri Dey under suspension and to extend his service as per Regulation of the Bank. 4. As discussed with the General Manager and Chief Vigilance Officer and Dy. General manager (Personnel) and also with Sri m. K. Basu, Asstt. General Manager, following steps have been taken: i) The Regional Manager, North India region, has been advised over phone to obtain an affidavit from Sri Dey forthwith stating that the sister of Sri Dey was the recipient of only one honorarium of Rs. 250/- per month at the material time and she does not enjoy any other honorarium from any other place and at the material time she had no other income save and except the income of Rs. 250/- as and by way of honorarium. II) The suspension order and the other connected papers with regard to the extension of services of Sri Dey are being kept ready and an officer has been deputed to visit Delhi by tomorrow morning flight and to deliver such suspension order and letters/orders to Sri Dey as stated above on obtaining confirmation from the Head office. He has also been advised to contact the Regional Manager, North India region, New Delhi and to remain there till such instruction is communicated by the head Office either to him or to the regional Manager. III) Since writing this note, we have been informed that an affidavit has already been completed by Sri Dey before a Notary public, New Delhi and the gist of such affidavit would be communicated to us over telex. IV) On receipt of the final decision on the question whether the Bank will accept the affidavit or would place Sri Dey under suspension and extend the services of Sri Dey, necessary steps would be taken in the matter. IV) On receipt of the final decision on the question whether the Bank will accept the affidavit or would place Sri Dey under suspension and extend the services of Sri Dey, necessary steps would be taken in the matter. It may kindly be noted that Sri patnaik, Probationary Law Officer of this division, has been deputed for the purpose of going to Delhi with necessary papers and his ticket for Delhi by tomorow's morning flight has been booked. Placed for kind instruction. Sd/- Anjan Chatterjee dy. Chief Officer disciplinary Division" thereafter the Deputy General Manager (P) prepared and signed office order No. PD/s/85/86 dated 30th December, 1986 placing the petitioner "under suspension with immediate effect pending completion of departmental enquiry and final order thereon". On 30th December 1986 affidavits were filed by the petitioner regarding the income of the sister and a telex message was sent from delhi initimating that he has filed affidavits. On 30th December 1986 the General manager and C. V. O. replied to the queries made by the Chairman dated 24th December 1986 which is stated as follows: "united BANK OF INDIA head OFFICE chairman and MG. DIRECTOR 31st Dec. 1986 re: Sri M. M. Dey, DRM, NIR replies to the Chairman's queries on the office Note dated 24th December 1986 of the Dy. General Manager (P) bearing cvo's observations on the matter. CMD's queries Reply ii) Is his sister not employed? If so, how has Vigilance not found any case against her. The fact of Smt. Chhaya Rani Dey's engagement by Shyama Prosad Mukherjee School, New Delhi has never been under dispute. The point of enquiry was whether she was drawing an honorarium of more than Rs. 250/- per month from that school. ? The enquiries revealed that at the relevant point of time she was drawing an honorarium of Rs. 250/-per month from the school and Shri Madan Mohan Dey on whom she is fully dependant was entitled to claim L. F. C. in respect of her in terms of the Officers Service Regulation, of the bank. Subsequent enquiries made and the Affidavit affirmed by Shri M. M. Dey has confirmed that she had no other source of income from anywhere. As it has turned out, there is no vigilance case in this matter. iii) What prompted him to transfer the A/c. to C. Circus? Why did C. Circus branch accept the A/c? Subsequent enquiries made and the Affidavit affirmed by Shri M. M. Dey has confirmed that she had no other source of income from anywhere. As it has turned out, there is no vigilance case in this matter. iii) What prompted him to transfer the A/c. to C. Circus? Why did C. Circus branch accept the A/c? In the matter of transfer of the account of M/s. Sri Krishna Hinges from Janpath to Cannaught Circus Branch the present Zonal Manager and the Regional Manager both have confirmed that they did not find any involvement of Shri M. M. Dey with the irregularities in the said account. On enquiry it is learned that the account was transferred to Con. Circus Branch with the concurrence of the Regional Manager as the R. O. was not satisfied with the handling of the account by Janpath Branch. iv) Also obtain affidavit from the officer and his sister. v) The sister was perhaps in receipt of two honorarium. That is what Shri Ghosh told me. If she was not in receipt of any other income by way of interest, dividend, rent or another honorarium we ought to be told so by the ZM. Somebody Shri M. M. Dey has already affirmed an affidavit and sent a true copy of the same declaring that his sister Smt. Chhaya Rani Dey was working in Shyama Prosad Mukherjee School during June-July 86 on a monthly honorarium of Rs. 250/-and she had no other source of income from anywhere during the relevant period. In view of the affidavit affirmed by Shri Dey. also considering that the Bank has really no cause of action against his sister and taking an overall view of the matter, an affidavit from his sister was not insisted upon. The entire matter relating to availment of Leave Fare Concession of the dependant sister of Shri Dey appears to have arisen out of what now appears to be loose talk. The undersigned talked with Shri S. N. Ghosh once again over telephone today and he (Shri Ghosh informed that he has made further enquiries into the matter and obtained must take responsibility of giving no abnormiiity detected NAD certificate after fully investigating ?? the ? fact Shri Ghosh told me that she was receiving honorarium one from School and another from the Board of another fund. the ? fact Shri Ghosh told me that she was receiving honorarium one from School and another from the Board of another fund. Now there is no mention of that and the case is deemed to be closed. I would not permit any hush closure. I am dissatisfied the way Vigilance Dept. is working. More than once I stated two honorarium but I see no mention. I am being harrassed and so is the accused. If there are two honorarium I am being harrassed unnecessarily, and if only one the accused is being harrassed unnecessarily. We would have been categorical one way or the other. confirmation from the school that Smt. Chhaya Rani Dey, sister of Shri Dey. did not get any other honorarium or salary from the school besides the honorarium of Rs. 250/-per month as had been mentioned earlier. She is not considered strictly an employee of the school. She is sickly and is not formally qualified. The school has given her this engagement on sympathetic grounds to keep herself occupied with the school children. Shri Ghosh also informed that her father died in debt and left nothing behind for the children to inherit. The entire liability of the unmarried sisters of Shri M. M. Dey devolved on him. Under ?? the ?? circumstances, it appears that there is no substance in the statement that Smt. Chhaya Rani Dey was in receipt of two honorarium. Also on the basis of investigations carried out and what have come to our notice, no abnormality from the vigilence angle has come to light. I may ??? be permitted to add that there was no attempt to hush hush the matter. Considering the dimension and nature of the allegations, the investigation was entrusted to the Zonal Manager. New Delhi, who is a senior Executive of the Bank. On going through his report it was considered adequate. On re-examination of the matter, I continue to be of the opinion that the case may be closed and Shri Madan Mohan Dey, DRM, north India Region, be allowed to retire in the usual course. Placed for approval. New Delhi, who is a senior Executive of the Bank. On going through his report it was considered adequate. On re-examination of the matter, I continue to be of the opinion that the case may be closed and Shri Madan Mohan Dey, DRM, north India Region, be allowed to retire in the usual course. Placed for approval. Sd/- B. Choudhuri general Manager and C. V. O. " on the said note dated 24th December, 1986 of the Deputy Chief Officer, Disciplinary division, the Deputy General Manager (Personnel) made the following comments: "1) R. M. NIR has obtained an affidavit from Sri M. M. Dey declaring that his sister had an income of Rs. 250/- P. M. in April 86. On receipt of telex from R. M. it was found that the L. T. C. was obtained in June and July 86. R. M. obtained another affidavit covering June-July 86. The telex giving the contents is expected soon. 2) Sri Sudhir Ghosh, Ex-Chief Officer phoned me today morning and informed that he enquired about the earning of miss. Dey and she is mentally and physically sick. Shri Dey maintains her and somehow she is engaged with a part time job with earning of Rs. 250/-Under the circumstances Shri Dey's retirement should not be held up. Sd/- Illegible 31. 12. 86" A further note was also made by the deputy General Manager (Personnel) as follows: "yesterday when 1 talked to R. M. NIR, shri Dey was present there and I talked to him about the transfer of the SSI a/c from janpath Br. to C. Circus. He informed that the party is in Ajmer Gate and C. Circus is nearer to RWN. Also he was not satisfied with the declaring of Rgr. Janpath and requested transfer. On that basis R. M. allowed transfer. Sd/- Illegible 31. 12. 86" The General Manager and Chief Vigilance officer forwarded the said note dated 24th december 1986 to the Chairman and Managing Director with his remarks as follows: "the replies to the CMD's queries on the earlier note and my observations are appended in the separate note attached herewith. Sd/- Illegible 31. 12. 86" on the said note the Chairman and Managing Director remarked as follows: "why can't we retire him and keep him in service for the purpose of disciplinary action? sd/- Illegible 1. 1. Sd/- Illegible 31. 12. 86" on the said note the Chairman and Managing Director remarked as follows: "why can't we retire him and keep him in service for the purpose of disciplinary action? sd/- Illegible 1. 1. 87" thereafter the Deputy General Manager put up a note before the General Manager (D)as follows: "1. May kindly see CMD's observation at the botom. He verbally expressed unhappiness over the enquiry. He also desired that z. M. Delhi should himself enquire and give a certificate. 2. Re the observation, an opinion of dgm (L) is enclosed which tells that there is no section to keep him after retirement. Sd/- Illegible 8. 1. 87" The General Manager remarked as follows: "our rules do not permit taking disciplinary action after retiring an employee. CMD's instruction for action to be taken by Z. M. may be conveyed to him for compliance. The findings so far do not suggest any disciplinary action. Sd/- Illegible 9. 1. 87" thereafter the Deputy General Manager (Personnel) sent a telegram on 12th January 1987 to the General Manager, New Delhi stating as follows: "cmd has desired that investigation case of M. M. Dey, DRM. NIR should be personally carried out by you as one sent earlier was done through a private agency. Please enquire personally the whole fact and send a report as early as possible. " on the copy of the said telex the Deputy general Manager (Personnel) remarked as follows: " 1. For kind information 2. May please consider the findings of the g. M. dt. 9th January 1987 that rules do not permit taking disciplinary action after retiring an employee. However, we have advised Zonal Manager to personally enquire and report. The CMD remarked on 13th January 1987 that even if an employee retires the management has right to take action against him for anything done during his tenure of service. " He remarked: "i hope we have retired him with such a rider. " on 15th January 1987 the Regional manager, New Delhi, wrote to the General manager (Personnel) as folows: "as advised by you over phone we have not released leave encashment to M. M. Dey, drm NIR who has retired from the bank service on 31st December, 1986. This is for your information. " It was directed that unless written instruction was received from the competent authority no payment should be made. This is for your information. " It was directed that unless written instruction was received from the competent authority no payment should be made. " on 15th January 1987 the Zonal Manager submitted a report to Chairman and Managing director. The said report is as follows: "sub: Investigation regarding claim for dependent sister's journey fare made by Sri M. M. Dey DRM NIR retired from service on 31. 12. 86 in his LTC application of 1986. We had forwarded with our letter No. ZM/con/35/3243/1986 to HO, the report of shri CM. Mukhi a private investigator on the above subject. Subsequently, I was directed that an investigation be carried out personally as the earlier one was done by a private agency. Accordingly, I called on Mrs. Surra Ghosh, principal, Shyama Prosad Senior Secondary School, Lodhi Estate, New Delhi at 10-30 A. M. on 14th January 1987. I showed her the photo copies of the certificates dated 12th July 1985 and 10th September 1986 issued by Shyama Prosad Vidyalaya education Society wherein the particulars of honorarium paid to Miss Chhaya Rani dey were furnished. She confirmed that the certificates were genuine and that they were in order. This is a society affiliated to the school. The main income of the society is from donations received from the public. The remuneration paid by them is too low in as much as they cannot afford to pay at higher rates to their staff. Miss Chhaya Rani Dey is doing full time honorary work at the society from 9. 00 AM to 4. 25 PM daily. The Principal confirmed that to the best of her knowledge and belief, Miss Dey (who was not a qualified person) has no other job other than the one she was having at the society. She added that the honorarium is paid by cheque every month. Their bankers are, Bank of India, Khan Market and Syndicate Bank at Lok Nayak Bhavan. On the same day, I called on both the banks. I could find out from the Manager of the Syndicate Bank that the cheque for the honorarium of Rs. 250. 00 issued in the month of October was cleared by our janpath Branch. The cheque bore the clearing stamp dated 29th October 1986 of our Janpath Branch. On the same day, I called on both the banks. I could find out from the Manager of the Syndicate Bank that the cheque for the honorarium of Rs. 250. 00 issued in the month of October was cleared by our janpath Branch. The cheque bore the clearing stamp dated 29th October 1986 of our Janpath Branch. In the afternoon, I called at our Janpath branch and obtained from the Manager the following certificates (certified copies issued by the Branch enclosed. 1. Photo copies of the statement of SB a/c. No. 322 of Miss Chhaya Dey from 10th december 1982 to 5th January 1987 along with the a/c. opening form. 2. Certificate No. JNP/con/87 dated 14th january 1987 of Janpath Branch stating that a Recurring Deposit a/c. No. 150/60/82 for 60 months was opened in the name of Miss Chhaya Rani Dey and Shri M. M. Dey on 15th February 1982, the instalment being Rs. 29. 00 per month. 3. The certificate No. JMP/con/87 dated 14th January 1987 of Janpath Branch stating that they have a Fixed Deposit a/c. No. 309/86 dated 15th February 1985 for Rs. 2000. 00 maturing on 15th February 1988 in the names of Miss Chhaya Dey and Shri m. M. Dey. It may kindly be noted from the statement of SB a/c. No. 322 that the following credits have appeared being the interest paid on the SB a/c. Date of Credit Amount 19. 6. 85 Rs . 19. 50 17. 12. 85 Rs . 23. 85 16. 6. 86 Rs . 76. 79 We give below our observations: we had been directed that we should satisfy ourselves on two points viz: 1) Miss Dey had no other employment 2) Miss Dey had no other income except the honorarium of Rs. 250. 00 p. m. As regards the point No. I (viz: employment) the Principal had confirmed that miss Dey is doing full time work at the society. Besides, she has also confirmed that to the best of her knowledge and belief that Miss Dey had no other employment. Moreover, Miss Dey is not a qualified person; otherwise she would not have continued in a small job with a monthly income of Rs. 250. 00. We may, therefore, accept the statement of the Principal that miss Dey has no other employment. Moreover, Miss Dey is not a qualified person; otherwise she would not have continued in a small job with a monthly income of Rs. 250. 00. We may, therefore, accept the statement of the Principal that miss Dey has no other employment. As regards the second (II) point (namely additional income) it appears from the enclosed statement of SB a/c. No. 322 that she has received interest in her a/c. on the sb balances maintained. If this income is added to her total income it will exceed the sum of Rs. 250. 00 per month which is the ceiling prescribed in the definition for a dependent relation for eligibility for receipt of LTC. There is a difference in the title of the SB a/c. which reads Miss Chhaya Dey whereas in the certificate of the society the name is given as Miss Chhaya Rani Dey. It is understood that "rani" does not generally form part of the name and as such on some occasions it is included and on some other occasions it is excluded. Be that as it may, it may please be noted from the a/c. opening form that the SB a/c. has been introduced by Shri M. M. Dey. Besides, the monthly honorarium of Rs. 250. 00 has been credited to her SB a/c. statement. It may, therefore, be inferred that Miss Chhaya rani Dey as mentioned in the society's certificate and Miss Chhaya Rani Dey SB a/c. holder No. 322 are one and the same person. The RD a/c. No. 150/60/82 opened on 15th february 1982 for 60 months is in the name of Miss Chhaya Rani Dey jointly with Shri m. M. Dey. Some interest must have accrued on this a/c. but not yet paid as it is maturing only in Feb. 87. However, the fd a/c. No. 309/86 for Rs. 2000. 00 is in the name of Miss Chhaya Dey and not Miss chhaya Rani Dey but jointly held with shri M. M. Dey. Kindly let us know whether any further information is required from us. " on the said report dated 15th January, 1987 the Deputy General Manager made the following remarks: "for kind perusal. The report of Z. M. indicates that Smt. Chhaya Rani Dey has no other source of income than the honorarium of Rs. 250/ -. The small interest of rs. " on the said report dated 15th January, 1987 the Deputy General Manager made the following remarks: "for kind perusal. The report of Z. M. indicates that Smt. Chhaya Rani Dey has no other source of income than the honorarium of Rs. 250/ -. The small interest of rs. 2/3 per month from savings is insignificant for recognizing as income. So it is felt that the matter may not be pusued further and Sri M. M. Day may be allowed to receive his retirement. Sd/- Illegible 20. 1. 87" the General Manager made the following remark: "i too feel that small amount of interest on savings A/c and the F. D. and Recurring deposit A/c held in joint name may be ignored. Sd/. Illegible 20. 1. 87" But Chairman did not agree. He remarked as follows: "i do not agree. Howsoever small the income, the income will go beyond Rs. 250/- limit. Please proceed against the officer. Please proceed against the officers who have been trying to shelter him by not making full enquiry, a report of W. H. including Officer at HO who were soft pedalling this matter. Sd/- Illegible 20/1/1987" On 19th January 1987 the Deputy Chief officer (Discipline) submitted the following note being Note No. FD DDR:p 12/8: "sri M. M. Dey, formerly Dy. Regional manager, N. I. R. retired from the service of the bank at the close of business on 31st december 1986. As per papers available of our record, there is no disciplinary action pending against Sri Dey on the date of his retirement. 2. The Regional Manager, North India region, has informed us that the leave encashment of Sri Dey has not yet been released by him as per the direction of the dy. General Manager (Personnel. 3. Kind instruction is solicited whether the action of the Regional Manager in not releasing the leave encashment of Sri Dey should be confirmed or not. " assistant General Manager (Personnel)remarked: "i have no opinion to offer" dy. General Manager (Personnel) remarked: "a further report has since been obtained from Z. M. Delhi. The same has been forwarded to G. M. (D) and CMD with recommendation for release. Since the cmd wanted the matter to be further investigated, we shall have to wait for the decision. " assistant General Manager (Personnel)remarked: "i have no opinion to offer" dy. General Manager (Personnel) remarked: "a further report has since been obtained from Z. M. Delhi. The same has been forwarded to G. M. (D) and CMD with recommendation for release. Since the cmd wanted the matter to be further investigated, we shall have to wait for the decision. Sd/- Illegible 21/1/1987" On 4th February 1987 the Deputy General manager (Personnel) wrote a letter to the general Manager and Chief Vigilance Officer. The said letter is as follows: "chairman and MD did not approve our recommendation for not to pursue further the allegation against Shri M. M. Dey that he availed of LFC for his dependent sister unauthorisedly. In reply to our suggestion that the small interest earning in SB A/c. (Rs. 76. 79 p for the half year ending 31st may 1986),. Recurring Deposit A/c. (of Rs. 25/- per month) and Fixed Deposit A/c. Rs. 2000. 00 the latter two in the joint name of Shri M. M. Dey and his sister, should be ignored, CMD desired us to proceed against the officers in Zonal/regional office and H. O. who soft pedalled the issue and also against Sri M. M. Dey. 2. Earlier Chairman observed on a separate note dt. 30/12/1986 that why can't we allow the officer to retire and keep him in service for the purpose of disciplinary action. In the above background we put forward our views for further consideration: i) The DGM (Legal) earlier submitted in reply to a separate query that an officer cannot be retired subject to inquiry. Copy of the report is enclosed. ii) As the subject incident came to us quite late we had to send one officer to Delhi on the last working day of Shri M. M. Dey in the Bank so that he could be served with suspension Letter at the last moment, if necessary. As CMD was not in station and as per one of his earlier instructions Shri Dey submitted an affidavit on the last working day confirming that his sister's monthly earning was not exceeding Rs. 250. 00 we consulted you and allowed Shri Dey to retire. iii) The additional income by way of interest as mentioned hereinabove did not come in earlier reports but appeared in the final report of ZM, Delhi dated 15th january 1987. 250. 00 we consulted you and allowed Shri Dey to retire. iii) The additional income by way of interest as mentioned hereinabove did not come in earlier reports but appeared in the final report of ZM, Delhi dated 15th january 1987. We do not feel that there was any attempt of cover up the matter either from Regional/zonal Office or from head Office. Such small earnings at irregular intervals possibly did not occur to anybody's mind as to be treated as regular monthly. iv) Since Shri Dey has sworn an affidavit which technically may not be true we may write to him for his explanation in this regard after legally examining the meaning of 'monthly income'. Incidentally, we may mention here that the IBA has since decided the residual issues of 4th Bipartite agreement and communicated the same by their letter dated 9th January 1987 (enclosed. The income limit for the dependent members therein has been enhanced to Rs. 500. 00 p. m. from Rs. 250. 00 p. m. Placed for kind consideration. Sd/- Dy. General Manager (Personnel)" General Manager remarked: "the matter was further discussed with cmd today when you were not present. Technically the income of the dependent sister of Shri Dey exceeded Rs. 250. 00 per month and to this extent the affidavit submitted by Shri Dey is not strictly correct. This should be pointed out to Shri Dey and he be asked to refund the LFC drawn by him for his sister. Failing which the Bank may have to take action against him for submitting an incorrect affidavit. Sd/-Illegible 10/2/1987" CO-DIR please see GM. (Vig)'s observations. Accordingly talk to GM and point out Shri dey immediately. Sd/-Illegible 11/2/1987 done on 12th February 1987. Shri Dey informed chat he would think over the matter and then take his decision. Sd/-Illegible 12/2/1987" on 19/2/1987 the petitioner submitted a representation to the Chairman and Managing Director for release of retirement benefits. Chairman remarked on the said petition as as follows: "there is a judgment of Supreme Court of india on appeal from the judgment of allahabad High Court ruling that even if a person has superannuated on due date he is still responsible for his misconduct done during service. Kindly obtain a copy of judgment. Sd/- Illegible 2/3. " On 6/3/1987 the petitioner's wife made an appeal to the Chairman and Managing Director. Kindly obtain a copy of judgment. Sd/- Illegible 2/3. " On 6/3/1987 the petitioner's wife made an appeal to the Chairman and Managing Director. In the said appeal she stated that even the leave encashment, which as a rule, was to be released on the next day of retirement i. e. 1st day of January, 1987 has not yet been released in spite of her husband's repeated appeal. Her husband was a chronic case of diabetes with M. T. and Hyderptension and was unable to continue with his private treatment as a consequence. Not only this, it has affected extremely in studies of her daughter and withholding of retirement benefit has affected all of them psychologically. She, therefore, asked for payment of the retirement benefits. In the said letter the Chairman marked as follows: "is there any case of irregularity pending against him?" it may be mentioned that on 18th March, 1987 the Deputy Chief Officer, Establishment division, wrote to the Deputy Chief Officer d. I. R. stating that as per his (Deputy Chief officer, D. I. R.) instruction gratuity of the petitioner has been withheld. On 21st April 1987 Mr. Jawhar Sircar, Private Secretary to the Minister of State of commerce, wrote to the Chairman and Managing Director which is as follows: "dear Shri Nayar, i am desired to enclose herewith a petition dated 20th April 1987 in original, submitted to the Union Minister of State for commerce by Shri M. M. Dey, Retd. Dy. Regional Manager, Union Bank of India, north India Region, New Delhi. It is understood from the petitioner that the officer was retired on 31st December 1986 after putting in 42 years of unblemished service in the Bank. After the retirement the petitioner has not got his retirement benefits i. e. unavailed Privilege Leave encashment, S. P. F. Amount and Gratuity amount till today. In the absence of all these benefits, the petitioner is facing acute hardships as mentioned in the petition. I shall be grateful if you could kindly look into the matter sympathetically. With regards," A reply came from the Asst. General manager, Personnel on 29th April 1987 which is as follows: "please refer to your D. O. letter No. 1303 (c)/87/892 dated 21/4/1987 addressed to our Chairman and Managing director enclosing original representation of Sri M. M. Dey, Ex. I shall be grateful if you could kindly look into the matter sympathetically. With regards," A reply came from the Asst. General manager, Personnel on 29th April 1987 which is as follows: "please refer to your D. O. letter No. 1303 (c)/87/892 dated 21/4/1987 addressed to our Chairman and Managing director enclosing original representation of Sri M. M. Dey, Ex. Deputy Regional manager, New Delhi submitted to Shri p. R. Dasmunshi, Hon'ble Minister of State for Commerce. The facts of the case are given below for apprising Hon'ble Minister about the reasons for withholding retirement dues of Shri Day. "shri M. M. Dey, Ex-Deputy Regional manager, North India Region, New Delhi obtained advance against LFC in the name of his unmarried dependent sister, Smt. Chhaya Dey. As per rules of the bank, an unmarried sister can be treated as dependent provided her total income does not exceed Rs. 250/- (Rupees two hundred fifty) per month. When Shri M. M. Dey was asked to affirm an affidavit about the montly income of his sister, he affirmed an affidavit stating that the total monthly income of his sister does not exceed Rs. 250/- per month. On further investigation it transpired that the total monthly income of his sister, Smt. Chhaya Dey, dependent of Shri M. M. Dey exceeds Rs. 250. 00. Shri dey has obviously affirmed a false affidavit and obtained advance against L. F. C. on false declaration. Shri Dey was asked to refund the advance drawn in the name of his sister and apologise to the Bank Management for suppression of the material fact in respect of the actual monthly income of his sister. Since Shri M. M. Dey, Ex-Deputy Regional manager, North India Region, Delhi has so far neither refunded the money drawn as advance for his sister nor apologised for the said misconduct, the Bank Management is not in a position to settle the retirement dues of Shri Dey as yet. In view of the above, you will appreciate bank's stand with regard to withholding retirement benefit of Shri Dey and brief hon'ble Minister of State for Commerce accordingly. " On 9th May, 1987 the petitioner made a representation, inter alia, to the General manager (Personnel) for release of his retirement dues. On the said representation the Dy. General Manager (P) made the following remarks: "co. " On 9th May, 1987 the petitioner made a representation, inter alia, to the General manager (Personnel) for release of his retirement dues. On the said representation the Dy. General Manager (P) made the following remarks: "co. (D. I. R.) - Please consider the action we should take to refute the claim" sd/m. Basu 13/5" the petitioner made a further representation in the form of a note to the Private Secretary to the Minister of State for Commerce on 11th May 1987 in which he, inter alia, stated as follows: "1. That as per rule I availed LFC with temporary advance for Rs. 21,600 for my family and my dependent sister Miss Chhaya rani Dey in the month of April 1986 and june, 1986 respectively. After the completion of our journey separately, I submitted the entire bill of Rs. 16,735. 90 p. of my temporary advance against L. F. C. and refunded Rs. 4,864. 10 p. for adjustment on 15th July 1986. Surprisingly, the pending bill was neither adjusted nor any communication was made to me in that regard inspite of my repeated verbal follows ups and written reminder dated 30th December 1986 for adjustment i. e. a day prior to the date of my retirerment on superannuation. 2. On the morning of 30th December, 1986, the Regional Manager Sri Deepak Bhattacharya informed me that a telephone may come for me from the H. O. at Calcutta any moment and hence I should be available to receive the same. The Regional Manager further informed me that someone (whose name he did not disclose) had made some allegation against me to the Chairman regarding my sister's income and on the basis of that a suspension order for me was being sent by the H. O. 3. Surprisingly, the person (Mr. Sudin ghosh Retd. The Regional Manager further informed me that someone (whose name he did not disclose) had made some allegation against me to the Chairman regarding my sister's income and on the basis of that a suspension order for me was being sent by the H. O. 3. Surprisingly, the person (Mr. Sudin ghosh Retd. as Chief Officer of U. B. I. Zonal Office, New Delhi) who made the aforesaid complaint against me to the chairman phoned me on the same very day in the R. M. Office and confessed that it was he who had reported against me to the chairman that my dependent sister in question was married and not only was working in Shyama Prasad Vidyalaya, Lodi Estate, new Delhi-3, but also was working on a partime basis elsewhere besides owning shares in her ancestral properties and having an earning from her R. D. account only to show that her income during the period the l. F. C. was claimed i. e. during June 1986 was more than the stipulated amount of rs. 250/- (for dependent. Since he was unable to prove his allegation made by him against me, he wanted me to help him to find some amicable solution to overcome his state of dilemma. I told him as he had made the allegation, the only solution would be that he should either prove the allegation or else, he should confess to the chairman that he had made a false allegation. It was not known immediately if he had relished the suggestion or was disappointed for my inability to abide by his request. However, immediately, I apprised the Regional Manager with Mr. Sudin ghosh's telephonic talks and told him that the name of the complaintant, which he did not want to pronounce, had been exposed. 4. I received the telephonic call from Sri samarendra Das Gupta, the then D. G. M. (now resigned) thorugh the R. M. on the same afternoon (i. e. 30th Dec, 1986. He wanted to know if my dependent sister (Miss Chhaya Dey) income was Rs. 250. 00 only. As I confirmed the same he informed me that the top management had already enquired and confirmed that she earned only on honorarium of Rs. 250. 00 from shyam Prasad Vidyalaya, Lodi Estate, new Delhi-3, but there is a report that she is doing partime jobs, whether it is true. 250. 00 only. As I confirmed the same he informed me that the top management had already enquired and confirmed that she earned only on honorarium of Rs. 250. 00 from shyam Prasad Vidyalaya, Lodi Estate, new Delhi-3, but there is a report that she is doing partime jobs, whether it is true. I said that the report is not correct. Then after some time he advised me through r. M. Shri D. K. Bhattacharya to submit an "affidavit" the source of income of my sister for the period April, 1986, On receiving the order through the R. M., I requested the (R. M.) to give me the order in writing to which he said that I should not insist on the written order but follow on his verbal order as the Top Management was trying to justify the information (given by s. N. Ghosh) as false. When I informed him that the court papers would not be available at that late hours he directed me after consulting with the H. O. to submit the "affidavit" on the plain paper duly attested by the Notary Public. The matter to be declared in the "affidavit" was dictated by D. G. M. (H. O.. I followed the directives of D. G. M. through the Regional manager and submitted the "affidavit" as desired which was sent to H. O. through telex. But immediately, after a while, another directive came to me through R. M. asking me to submit another "affidavit" in regard to my sister's income for the period of June, July, 1986 for which L. F. C. was claimed, in the same format directed by a short while ago. I submitted the 2nd "affidavit" also which was again sent to the H. O. through telex. 5. In my declaration in both the "affidavits" i stated that my dependent sister Miss chhaya Dey was working in Shyama Prasad vidyalaya during April and June, July, 1986 on a monthly honorarium of Rs. 250. 00 only and she had no other source of income from anywhere whatsoever during the time mentioned above. 6. On the following day i. e. on the 31st of dec. 86 the day I was to retire on supperannuation, I had to move from the office, on a short leave, on urgent telephonic call from home. 7. 250. 00 only and she had no other source of income from anywhere whatsoever during the time mentioned above. 6. On the following day i. e. on the 31st of dec. 86 the day I was to retire on supperannuation, I had to move from the office, on a short leave, on urgent telephonic call from home. 7. On the same day i. e. 31st December 1986, one officer came from H. O. by morning flight with a suspension order for me, but surprisingly, that s/o. was not served to me till 5 p. m. The officer also returned back to Calcutta with the order. However, I was allowed to retire in a normal way. 8. Now for your kind information my sister was maintaining a RD A/c. No. 150/60 with our Janpath Branch with Rs. 25/-p. m. opened on 15th February 1982 for 5 years and matured on 4th April 1987. In r/d. A/c. interest accrued after maturity of the A/c. as per rule. Besides that she had a Saving Bank A/c. No. 322 with the same Branch in which she deposits her honorarium. A certificate from school management is enclosed herewith mentioning Rs. 250. 00 her monthly honorarium, on which I submitted "affidavit" as instructed by the higher management over phone on 30th December 1986. 9. But the retirement dues have not been released till date, inspite of my repeated appeal since Jan' 1987 without citing any reason for withholding all my dues. Even the management have not acknowledged my several reminders. Further management has given a false information to the Honorable Minister stating that they have asked me to refund the advance drawn for dependent sister and apologies to the Bank Management. It is a clear case of harrassment and conspiracy by the Management for no fault of mine. Now that since the management has concealed the entire facts to justify their action, I request you to think over the following points: the Leave Fare Concession bill after completion of journey was submitted on 15th july 1986 to Regional Manager (NIR)N. D. after refunding the balance amount of Rs. 4,864. 10 against temp. advance of rs. 21,600/ -. (1) Why the bill was not adjusted upto 31st december 1986. (2) Why the reason of non-adjustment of my l. F. C. bill was not intimated to me inspite of my several verbal requests and a written reminder dt. 4,864. 10 against temp. advance of rs. 21,600/ -. (1) Why the bill was not adjusted upto 31st december 1986. (2) Why the reason of non-adjustment of my l. F. C. bill was not intimated to me inspite of my several verbal requests and a written reminder dt. 30th December 1986. (3) The amount of L. F. C. incurred for my dependant sister is Rs. 1,738. 00, the management could easily release my leave encashment benefit and the amount could be shown as liability and would adjust from my gratuity and Provident Fund a/c. approximately Rs. 2. 00 lakhs. (4) Why the management has not called upon me any explanation regarding my l. F. C. bill from the date of submission of bill i. e. 15th July 1986 till the date of my retirement i. e. 31st December 1986. (5) For not getting the entire retirement benefit about Rs. 2. 00 lacs in due time, I am loosing huge day to day interest and at the same time I am to pay higher interest in my housing Building Loan A/c. (6) Even my and my wife's Regd. A/d letter addressed to Sri K. D. Nayar, Chairman and Managing Director, has not been acknowledged till date. (7) Now Hon'ble Minister could easily understand the motive of the Management for my harrassment. " Upon receipt of the said note from the petitioner Mr. Jawher Sarkar again wrote to the chairman on 12th May 1987 enclosing the said note requesting him to kindly look into the matter once again. His letter and reply of the deputy General Manager are set out hereafter: "no. MS (C)/87 12/5/1987 dear Shri Nayar, i am desired to refer to your AGM's letter no. PD: 26015:87 dated 29th April 87 regarding the retirement benefits of Shri m. M. Dey, Ex-Deputy Regional Manager. Shri Dey has submitted a further representation/note which puts forth certain facts that are contradictory to those stated in your AGM's letter under reference. I am to request you to kindly look into the matter once again as some of the points raised by Shri Dey appear rather curious. With kind regards, yours sincerely, sd/- Jawhar Sarkar" A reply of the said letter dt. 23rd May 1987 is as follows: "please refer to your D. O. letter No. MS. I am to request you to kindly look into the matter once again as some of the points raised by Shri Dey appear rather curious. With kind regards, yours sincerely, sd/- Jawhar Sarkar" A reply of the said letter dt. 23rd May 1987 is as follows: "please refer to your D. O. letter No. MS. (C)/87-1088 dated 12th May 1987 addressed to our Chairman and Managing director regarding settlement of retirement dues of Shri M. M. Dey, Ex-Deputy regional Manager, North India Region, new Delhi. We have gone through the note submitted to you by Shri Dey. The fact remains that shri M. M. Dey had given a false declaration about the dependence of his sister, smt. Chhaya Dey knowing fully well that her total income exceeded Rs. 250. 00 at the time of obtaining advance against L. F. C. for his sister. Though School Certificate indicates that Smt. Chhaya Dey's monthly income does not exceed Rs. 250. 00 per month, but total income of Smt. Dey exceeded Rs. 250. 00 per month during the period when Shri Dey obtained advance taking into account other sources of income of Smt. Dey. As per Bank's rules, one cannot be considered as dependent if his/her total monthly income exceeds Rs. 250. 00 per month. In the above circumstances, we wish to inform you that unless Shri Dey admits his lapse for deliberate suppression of fact about his sister's actual monthly income, the Bank is unable to take any decision for final settlement of Shri Dey's retirement benefit. Yours faithfully, sd/- Dy. General Manager (Personnel)' Thereafter the petitioner's daughter made a request through the grievances column of the statesman, New Delhi. But it fell on deaf ear. On the contrary the Chairman and Managing director directed the Zonal Manager to make an investigation regarding claim for dependent sister's journey fare made in 1981. He submitted a report on 18th June, 1987. The said report was forwarded to the Chairman and managing Director under cover letter dated 28th June, 1987. The said report and forwarding letter are as folows: "sub: L. F. C. Bill of Sri MM Dey, Ex-DRM as requested 1 am submitting below the facts in the matter of Leave Fare Concession Bill of Sri Madan Mohan Dey, the then Manager, Janpath Branch. The said report and forwarding letter are as folows: "sub: L. F. C. Bill of Sri MM Dey, Ex-DRM as requested 1 am submitting below the facts in the matter of Leave Fare Concession Bill of Sri Madan Mohan Dey, the then Manager, Janpath Branch. Sri Dey, while posted to Janpath Branch applied for availing L. F. C. during the leave sanctioned some times in May 81. As per his application he was permitted to avail the L. F. C. The above sanction was made in the Bank's prescribed memo for sanctioning L. F. C. After availing L. F. C. he submitted Journey completion Certificate on 10th August 1981. In the said certificate he claimed the fare of his dependent sister namely Miss chhaya Dey from Delhi to Calcutta and back. Since the dependent sister of officer employee was not considered as family member of the officer in terms of Officers Service regulations Act, 1979, the undersigned put remarks on the certificate stating that the fare of his dependent sister cannot be reimbursed under the Rules. At that time, the matter was represented by sri Dey personally and orally and as such the L. F. C. Journey Completion Certificate could not be disposed of as per the remarks/observation made by the undersigned. After sometime the then Regional manager asked me to pass the Bill since the dependent sister was included in the definition of Officers Service Regulation in 1982. Since I was asked by my Senior officer I did not find any alternative but to release the L. F. C. Bill. In this connection I may mention that the dependent sister had been included in the definition of family member w. e. f. April 1982 and when Sri Dey actually availed the l. F. C. dependent sister was not included/considered as family member for the purpose of L. F. C. The original L. F. C. Journey Completion certificate and sanctioned memo with all comments/observations are enclosed herewith for your necessary information. The above matter was raised by the u. B. O. A. duringithe course of their meeting with the Regional Manager. A copy of minutes dated January, 1985 is also enclosed herewith for your ready reference. The above matter was raised by the u. B. O. A. duringithe course of their meeting with the Regional Manager. A copy of minutes dated January, 1985 is also enclosed herewith for your ready reference. Sd/- Illegible" The forwarding letter by the Zonal manager dated 28th June 1987 to the Chairman and Managing Director is as follows: "as directed by you we had made an investigation regarding the claim for dependent sister's journey fare made by Shri M. M. Dey, DRM. NIR (retired from service on 31st December 1986) in his LFC application of 1986. Our report on the investigation was submitted to you vide our letter no. ZM/conf/35/138/87 dated 15th january. During your recent visit to Delhi you had directed our RM, NIR on the 12th June 87 to investigate further the LFC matter to Shri M. M. Dey, Ex-DRM/previous manager, Janpath Branch. An investigation was carried out by our RM, NIR and the confidential report dated 18th June 1987 received from him is enclosed for your kind perusal. The report is self-explanatory. We give below our observations: it is brought out in the report that in the journey completion certificate, dated 10th august 1981 Shri M. M. Dey had claimed the journey fare of his dependent sister namely Miss Chhaya Dey from Delhi to calcutta and back. In terms of the OSR 1979 such fare for dependent sister was not admissible, as a dependent sister was not included in the definition of the family member of an officer. While putting up the bill to the then RM Shri S. O. Dev the personnel Officer, Sri R. R. Roy of the regional Office clearly brought out this fact in writing as below: "sister is not covered under the definition of family member and as such the fare incurred for sister cannot be reimbursed. " subsequently in the year 1982 the dependent sister was also included in the definition of a family member of an officer under the OSR. The R. M. addressed the following remarks on 30th October 1982 to the Personnel Officer: "as per OSR (amended upto 30th June 1982) I understand that Shri Dey is entitled for LFC for his dependent sister. If so, his bill may be disposed of accordingly. The R. M. addressed the following remarks on 30th October 1982 to the Personnel Officer: "as per OSR (amended upto 30th June 1982) I understand that Shri Dey is entitled for LFC for his dependent sister. If so, his bill may be disposed of accordingly. " In view of these remarks of the then RM the personnel Office Shri R. R. Roy allowed the bill on 4th November 1982 with the following remarks. "as per discussion with the RM the fare for his sister may also be reimbursed. " it appears that the decision taken by the regional Office to allow the LFC for the dependent sister was not in accordance with the rules prevailing at that time. It will therefore be necessary to realise the journey fare of Miss chhaya Dey from the superannuation dues payable to Shri Dey. Besides, it will also be necessary to call for the explanation of the then RM who is presently posted as Chief officer, S and C II at HO to ascertain the circumstances under which the incorrect decision was taken by him. " The Chairman did not rest there. He directed to call for an explanation from S. C. Deb chief Officer, regarding leave fare concession sanctioned to petitioner's sister. He was asked to show cause why in 1981-82 he deviated from the rules and sanctioned LFC for the dependent sister of the petitioner. His reply dated 19th July 1987 is as follows: "please refer to your letter No. PD:dir:26857/87 dated the 30th June, 1987 calling for my explanation in regard to the alleged deviation from the bank's rules in having allowed payment to the dependent sister of Sri M. M. Dey as she was not elgible for L. F. C. as per the definition obtaining in 1981. It has been pointed out in your letter that the dependent sister was included in the definition of a family member only after the amendment of the service Regulations 1982 and that she was not, therefore, eligible for the leave fare concession at the time the journey was performed and completed in 1981. It has been pointed out in your letter that the dependent sister was included in the definition of a family member only after the amendment of the service Regulations 1982 and that she was not, therefore, eligible for the leave fare concession at the time the journey was performed and completed in 1981. I find from the records that Shri R. R. Roy, the Personnel Officer in the Regional office (North India Region) had pointed out in a note dated 21st August 1981 that sister was not covered under the definition of a family member and as such the fare incurred for sister could not be reimbursed and that thereafter the bill was kept pending. It is further observed that I had recorded a note in October 1982 that. ' As per osr (amended upto to 31st June 1982) I understand that Shri Dey is entitled to lfc for his dependent sister. If so, the bill may be disposed of accordingly'. Thereafter it appears from the records that the personnel Officer, after a discussion with me, recommended reimbursement of the fare for Shri Dey's sister which was authorised by me in November, 1982. While I agree with the facts as stated in your letter, I beg to submit that I had no intention of violating the bank's rules and the payment was authorised in good faith. Apparently the bill was passed by me under a genuine impression that with the coming into force pf the revised definition of family member, Shri Dey's sister was eligible for leave fare concession in respect of the pending bill although the journey was completed in 1981. In this context, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that the change in the definition of a family member was not by an amendment to the Service Regulations and as far as I can recollect, Regulation 44 dealing with leave fare concession itself does not still define the concept of family unlike Regulation 42 where, for the purpose of transfer travelling allowance, the expression family was already defined as to include a whole dependent sister residing with the employee. I believe what was modified in 1982 was only the Administrative Instructions to the Service Regulations clarifying their scope. I believe what was modified in 1982 was only the Administrative Instructions to the Service Regulations clarifying their scope. According to para 272 of these instructions (as amended upto 1st July 1982) which were in force when I had authorised the payment in November, 1982, the expression 'family' for leave fare concession was extended to cover also a sister wholly dependent on the employee and residing with him (as in the case of transfer travelling allowance. Apparently since there was no indication in the body of the guidelines as to the date from which para 272 came into force and as Regulation 44 itself had not undergone any change, I might have formed the view that the new para 272 merely clarified the scope of Regulation 44 as already in force in 1981. I now observe from the records that a slip is found pasted to the guidelines immediately after the index became effective and according to this slip para 272 regarding definition of family for leave fare concession came into force only from February 1982. To the best of my knowledge, no circular seems to have been issued by H. O. clarifying that the amendment of the definition of the family would be effective from only Feb. 1982 and apparently I might have acted on the basis of para 272 of the guidelines (as amended upto 1st July 1982) overlooking the slip. I also find from the records that the slip was circulated by h. O. only on 18th October 1982 for being pasted to the guidelines and it is possible that the slip might not have been received by the regional Office at the time that the payment was authorised by me. In this context, I may also point out that in the new edition of the guidelines (as amended upto = 1. 84), the date of coming into force of the revised definition has been indicated against para 272 itself. In view of the foregoing, I respectfully submit that I had acted under the genuine belief that the passing of the bill was in accordance with Regulation 44 read with para 272 of the Administrative Instructions. I faintly remember that while recording the note in October, 1982, I had also consulted H. O. over the phone although I might not be able to substantiate it. I faintly remember that while recording the note in October, 1982, I had also consulted H. O. over the phone although I might not be able to substantiate it. Even if my interpretation of para 272 was not correct, I would submit that it was in good faith. I may also be permitted to submit that the bank's interpretation that the term 'family member' for leave fare concession included a dependent sister only from Feb, 1982 (instead of the date from which Reg. 44 came into force) may not be legally correct as any administrative instruction can be issued under Regulation 50 only for giving effect to or carrying out the provisions of the regulations. An administrative instruction, however, cannot limit the scope of or postpone the applicability of a Regulation in the Service Regulations made by the board in exercise of the enabling provisions of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 in consultaton with R. B. I. and with the previous sanction of the Central govt. " Thereafter the Under-Secretary of the department of Economic Affairs (Banking division) wrote to the General Manager on 23rd/27th July, 1987 regarding non-payment of the retirement benefit to the petitioner. On 17th/19th August, 1987 the petitioner was for the first time informed by the Dy. General manager (P) why he was not being paid his retirement benefits. The said letter I have already set out hereinbefore. On 14th September, 1987 the Chief Officer (DIR) sent the following telegram to the regional Manager: "we UNDERSTAND THAT THERE IS A judgment OF SUPREME COURT OF india ABOUT INITATION OF DEPTT. ACTION AND HOLDING OF DEPARTMENTAL ENQUIRY AGAINST AN employee OF AN ORGANIZATION even AFTER RETIREMENT FROM the SERVICE (.) PLEASE OBTAIN the ABOVE JUDGMENT IMMEDIATELY AS PER THE DIRECTIVE OF higher AUTHORITY AND SEND the SAME TO US THROUGH courier SERVICER (.) WE ALSO understand THAT SHRI S. K. GHOSH, CHIEF OFFICER, LEGAL, during ONE OF HIS VISITS TO delhi ALSO MENTION THIS THING to YOU AND THE LAW OFFICER OF north INDIA REGION. THIS MORNING THE MATTER HAS ALSO BEEN reminded TO SHRI R. GUPTA, asstt. GEN. THIS MORNING THE MATTER HAS ALSO BEEN reminded TO SHRI R. GUPTA, asstt. GEN. MANAGER OF THE zonal OFFFICE (.)" The petitioner on 23rd September, 1987 wrote to the Desk Officer, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Pension and Pensioners' Welfare as follows: "i am grateful for your kind acknowledgement of my letter dated 6th April 1987 addressed to the Hon'ble Minister. Subsequent to my retirement on 31st december 1986, I was told by the Regional manager, NIR of the Bank by his leter No. NIR/adm/aft/ors/286/87 dated 5/7th jan. 87 (copy enclosed) i. e. 7 days after my retirement, "the amount of Gratuity payable to you will be released only after getting the vacant possession of flat and the settlement of electricity bills etc. " On 27th February, 1987 just on the expiry of 2 months allowed to me by the said letter for keeping the flat, I vacated the flat under receipt granted to me of the same date and also duly paid electricity bills etc. The above assurance was however not kept by the Bank and payment of Gratuity and s. P. F. and other dues were withheld inspite of my repeated appeals direct to the bank and through other Government authorities for such payments. At long last the bank has come out with their letter No. PD/dir/29248/87 dated 17/19th August 1987 addressed to me and signed by the D. G. M. (N) (copy enclosed), stating, inter alia, "the payment of your retirement dues may however be considered only upon your admitting the lapse for deliberate suppression of facts about your sister's monthly income and making good the loss caused to the Bank". The letter itself exposes Bank's deliberate motive to hoodwink me to a false self-accusing confession against my own affidavit under the dictates of the Bank and the real reason of withholding my S. P. F. and Gratuity and other retiring benefits so long I do not submit further to their dictates. The moot questions that arise now and on which I seek your interference and my redress are the following: (1) Can any employer and more so any nationalised Institution has any right to withhold S. P. F. and Gratuity for an indefinite period of which a painful 9 months have already passed, cruelly depriving an employee, after 42 years of unblemished service of his daily bread after a clean retirement? (3) Can the Chairman of a Bank at whose direct behest all these are being done, be allowed to be so vindictive of which my case is only an instance and still continue in his high office? (3) Is there no authority in the Government of India or the Reserve Bank of India who can bring to book the diabolical misdeeds of the authorities of the Bank? (4) If I am forced to go to Court for redress, who will pay for the expenses, specially when the only source of fund my retiring benefits are withheld? (5) If I lose in Court, I shall have to pay the penalty. But if the Bank loses, will the authorities concerned of the Bank be personally liable for paying the penalty? (6) Is there any relevancy of withholding my total retiring benefits with the demand made by the Bank in their letter: (7) Has the Bank any right to blackmail me to a forced confession after retirement by keeping me starved and that, even without any pending case against me? (8) What will be the fate of interest on my retiring benefits specially when interest is continuing to run on my House Building loan which is adjustable against such benefits? answer to the above questions are relevant for deciding immediate redress and relief to me for which I think, your Ministry is the appropriate authority to take necessary steps. Expecting your kind response and immediate action. " On 6th October, 1987 the Regional Manager wrote the following letter to the Dy. General Manager (P): "our Chairman during his visit to Delhi directed that a reply is to be given to Shri m. M. Dey for his letter to Head Office for the non-payment of his superannuation dues. You may kindly recall that Shri Dey was allowed to retire on the 31st Dec. 86 on the basis of the affidavit given by him in connection with the monthly income of his dependent sister Miss Dey for whom he had claimed L. F. C. Our subsequent investigation report dated 15th January 1987 disclosed that Miss Dey was in receipt of some additional income during the relevant period of the L. F. C. claim, thereby adversely affecting her status as dependent sister. Hence, it turned out that the statement of Mr. Dey in the affidavit was incorrect. Hence, it turned out that the statement of Mr. Dey in the affidavit was incorrect. In the circumstances Head Office had decided to withhold the payment of the superannuation dues of Mr. Dey. The chairman therefore directed that a reply be given to him after getting it approved by the Bank's Lawyer. I, therefore, request you to take necessary steps in the matter, keeping the Chairman informed. " The Jt. Secretary, Finance, forwarded the representation of the petitioner asking the reason why the retirement benefits were held up to the petitioner. The Zonal Manager forwarded the papers to the Executive Director on 19th October, 1987 and the Executive Director made the following remarks: "please put up this case for my perusal as I would like to discuss with CMD" it does not appear what discussion had taken place, but the following note dated 27th october, 1987 was put up before the Excutive director: on 27th October, 1987 the following report was submitted by the Chief Officer, Discipline and Industrial Relations Divn. to the Deputy general Manager, Personnel: ref: Delay in payment of retirement benefit of Shri M. M. Dey, Ex-Dy. Regional manager, UBI North India Region. New Delhi. Based on an anonymous complaint against Shri M. M. Dey, Ex-Deputy regional Manager, North India region, New Delhi, the Vigilance department of the Bank conducted an investigation on the following specific allegations against Shri Dey: i) Crediting twice of T. T. for Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) only in the account of M/s. Mitra Prakashan when Shri Dey was Manager, Janpath branch. ii) Giving false declaration by Shri m. M. Dey about the dependence of his sister (Smt. Chhaya Dey)iii) Sanctioning of D. R. I. loan to a party from Janpath Branch instead of c. R. Park Branch where the party actually resides: So far as item Nos. (i) and (iii) are concerned, the Vigilance Department was satisfied with the replies of the Zonal manager and the independent investigation made by the said department. No further action was proposed by the Vigilance department on these 2 (two) allegations. As regards obtaining advance against l. F. C. by Shri M. M. Dey it was reported that Smt. Chhaya Dey could not be considered as dependent of Shri M. M. Dey due to the fact that Smt. Chhaya Dey was employed in a school in Delhi and her monthly income was beyond Rs. As regards obtaining advance against l. F. C. by Shri M. M. Dey it was reported that Smt. Chhaya Dey could not be considered as dependent of Shri M. M. Dey due to the fact that Smt. Chhaya Dey was employed in a school in Delhi and her monthly income was beyond Rs. 250/- per month at the time of drawal of advance against L. F. C. by Shri M. M. Dey. The zonal Manager, New Delhi made an independent enquiry by himself as well as through a private Investigator. In both the reports, it has been stated that Smt. Chhaya Dey, sister of Sri M. M. Dey, was receiving Rs. 250/- per month as honorarium for working in a school in Delhi. Sri dey was due to retire from the bank's service at the close of business on 31st december 1986. Shri Dey was advised by head Office to submit an affidavit with regard to the monthly income of his sister which he complied with on 30th December 1986 being the last working day of the year as 31st December 1986 was Sunday. Shri dey was allowed to retire from the Bank's service on usual course. A departmental note duly routed through the Chief Vigilance Officer was submitted to the Chairman and Managing Director for letting off shri M. M. Dey from the charges leveled against him. The relevant Note is flagged and marked 'a'. The bank, however, received certain information subsequently about the monthly earning of Smt. Chhaya Dey, sister of Shri m. M. Dey. The Zonal Manager, North india Region was specifically advised to ascertain whether Smt. Chhaya Dey had some monthly income from any other source. The information was followed up by the Z. M. and it was subsequently reported by the Zonal Manager that she had income by way of interest on Fixed Deposit and Recurring Deposit maintained by her with Janpath Branch. The report of the zonal Manager is also flaged and marked 'b'. Since the total earning of Smt. Chhaya Dey exceeded the permissible limit of Rs. 250/-the bank had decided to consider release of retirement benefits on admission by Sri dey of the lapses on his part. Meanwhile shri Dey made a series of complaints through the Minister of State for Commerce, Sri Priya Ranjan Das Munshi, through Banking Division, and through minister of State for Grievances and Pensions, Sri P. Chidambaram. 250/-the bank had decided to consider release of retirement benefits on admission by Sri dey of the lapses on his part. Meanwhile shri Dey made a series of complaints through the Minister of State for Commerce, Sri Priya Ranjan Das Munshi, through Banking Division, and through minister of State for Grievances and Pensions, Sri P. Chidambaram. The Bank had replied to such complaints which is marked as 'c Shri Dev was also communicated vide our letter No. PD/dir/2/218/87 dated 17/19th August, 1987 that bank is prepared to release his retirement dues provided he admits his lapses. Subsequently, shri Dey came down to Calcutta and met with Chairman and Managing Director of the Bank (in the month of Sept. 87) who had agreed to release his retirement dues upon Shri Dey's admitting the lapse and expressing regret. Shri Dey has, however, not complied with such advice. Placed for kind persual. " on 30th/31st October, 1987 the Dy. Manager (P) wrote to the petitioner as follows: "further to our letter No. PD/dir/2/248/87 dated 17/19th August, 1987 we write to inform you that we are unable to settle your retirement dues as you had given a false declaration about the monthly income of your dependent sister, Smt. Chhaya Dey, knowing fully well that her total income exceeded Rs. 250/- per month at the time of obtaining advance against lfc for your sister. The payment of your retirement dues may. however, be considered only upon your admitting the lapse for deliberate suppression of fact about your sister's actual monthly income and making good the loss caused to the Bank. " 8. A few other facts must be mentioned. Firstly the petitioner was never asked to refund the advance drawn for his dependent sister or apologise to the bank management. He categorically stated that in his representation to Mr. Jawhar Sarkar. This has not been denied by the bank. Secondly the bank on 5/7th January, 1987 wrote to the petitioner as follows: "as approached by you, vide your letter dated 2nd December 1986, you may be allowed to retain the Bank's quarter for a period of two months only from the date of your retirement i. e. 31st December 1986. You are required to pay rent for two months, i. e. January, 1987 and February, 1987, as per Bank's Circular No. HRD/ por (P)/12/86 dated 21st August 1986. You are required to pay rent for two months, i. e. January, 1987 and February, 1987, as per Bank's Circular No. HRD/ por (P)/12/86 dated 21st August 1986. The amount of gratuity payable to you will be released only after getting the vacant possession of flat and the settlement of electricity bills etc. " On 27th February, 1987 just before expiry of two months allowed to the petitioner by the said letter, the petitioner vacated the flat and a receipt was granted to him. The said promise was not kept by the bank and the gratuity, provident fund and other dues were withheld in spite of repeated representation. Thirdly, no explanation has been given why until August, 1987, the petitioner was not informed the alleged ground of withholding retirement benefits. Whatever might have been the ground, withholding of the entire dues of about Rs. 2. 00 lacs against alleged claim of Rs. 1738. 30 for more than one and half years has severely affected the petitioner's existence and livelihood of the family. He could not pay house Building loan which is adjustable against such retirement benefits. Result is that he shall have to go on paying interest unnecessarily on the said loan which could have been avoided. Lastly, it is on record (note dated February 4, 1987 of the DGM, Personnel) that the IBA has since decided the residual issues of 4th bipartite Agreement and communicated the same by their letter dated 9th January 1987. The income limit for the dependent members therein has been enhanced to Rs. 500/- p. m. from Rs. 250/- p. m. These then are the facts. Before I deal with the contentions of Mr. Ginwalla, learned counsel for the respondents, it is necessary to advert to a few other facts. The income of the petitioner's sister, as honorarium from the school, was Rs. 250/- per month at the material time. She was sick and wholly dependent on her brother. She had no qualification. But it was only on compassionate ground that she was given an appointment in the school. When the investigator was appointed to find out her salary, the Chairman and Managing Director proceeded on the footing that she was having two sets of income from school. This was not the case and it was proved untrue. She had no qualification. But it was only on compassionate ground that she was given an appointment in the school. When the investigator was appointed to find out her salary, the Chairman and Managing Director proceeded on the footing that she was having two sets of income from school. This was not the case and it was proved untrue. But this did not in any manner take away the zeal of the chairman and Managing Director to proceed with the investigation once again to find the ways and means to penalise the petitioner. This not only manifests bias and malice, but also sheer vindictivness on the part of the head of the bank. The Zonal Manager made the investigation and he reported that the petitioner's sister was maintaining Savings Bank Account no. 332 and the following credit appeared in the said account: date of Credit amount 19. 06. 85 19. 50 17. 12. 85 23. 85 in other words in the year 1985 the sister of the petitioner had income from interest amounting to Rs. 43. 35. On 16th June, 1985 a credit was made of Rs. 76. 79. Accordingly it was sought to be held that she had income of more than Rs. 250/- per month. The Dy. General Manager recommended that small interest of Rs. 2/3 per month from savings being insignificant should not be recognised as income and the matter should not be proceeded further. The General Manager also felt that small amount of interest on savings account should be ignored. But the Chairman and managing Director did not agree. He was of the view that howsoever small the income, it exceeded Rs. 250/ -. The Chairman and Managing Director deliberately proceeded to ignore recommendation or advice of the Dy. General manager and the General Manager. He did not take into account the real income. The material date for the purpose of determining the eligibility of the petitioner to have a leave fare concession is the date when the application for such concession was made. The petitioner made the application on 5th April, 1986. The question is on that day whether the income of the petitioner's sister exceeded Rs. 250/- per month. The interest which accrued in the year 1985 amounting to Rs. 43. 35 could not be taken into account for determining the eligibility of the petitioner to obtain leave fare concession in the year 1986. The question is on that day whether the income of the petitioner's sister exceeded Rs. 250/- per month. The interest which accrued in the year 1985 amounting to Rs. 43. 35 could not be taken into account for determining the eligibility of the petitioner to obtain leave fare concession in the year 1986. On 5th April, 1986 no interest was credited in the bank. It was credited only on 16th June, 1986. The interest might accrue month by month, but for an ordinary depositor, this does not become an income unless credited in his account. It is only after receipt of the interest, the depositor has to treat it as her income. In the recurring deposit account no interest was credited and only upon maturity on 4th April, 1987 the payment was made. There also no interest was received month by month. A term deposit of Rs. 2000/-was made on 15th February, 1985 for 3 years. It matured on 15th February, 1988. Interest was paid half yearly. The interest was only received on 15th June, 1986. Therefore, at the date when the application was made the income of the petitioner's sister was Rs. 250/ -. Accordingly the view that she had income more than rs. 250/- per month at the material time cannot be accepted and the action engineered by the Chairman and Managing Director is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. 9. THAT apart, while the petitioner was in service he was sought to be suspended and disciplinary proceeding was proposed to be taken against him, but ultimately that was dropped and the petitioner was allowed to retire on 31st December, 1986. 10. AFTER his retirement no further proceeding could be taken against him. The petitioner was not informed until 7 months after his retirement why he was not paid his dues. On 17/19th August, 1987 he was informed that the bank was unable to settle the retirement dues as he had given false declaration about the monthly income of his dependent sister knowing fully well that her total income exceeded Rs. 250/- at the time of obtaining advance against leave fare concession for his sister. Payment of retirement dues may, however, be considered only upon the petitioner's admitting the lapse for deliberate suppression of facts about sister's actual monthly income and making good the loss caused to the Bank. 250/- at the time of obtaining advance against leave fare concession for his sister. Payment of retirement dues may, however, be considered only upon the petitioner's admitting the lapse for deliberate suppression of facts about sister's actual monthly income and making good the loss caused to the Bank. Before August, 1987 the petitioner was not informed anything in writing after the chairman and Managing Director decided to proceed further even after the Dy. General manager and General Manager had recommended that no further action should be taken against the petitioner and retirement benefit should be released. 11. ON 10th February, 1987 the General manager after discussion with the Chairman and Managing Director stated that technically the income of the dependent sister of the petitioner exceeded Rs. 250/- and to that extent affidavit submitted by him was not strictly correct. "this should be pointed out to Shri dey and he be asked to refund the LFC drawn by him for his sister. Failing which the Bank may have to take action against him for submitting an incorrect affidavit". But this was never communicated to the petitioner. But when subsequently the impugned letter dated 17/19th August, 1987 was issued by the Dy. General Manager, further condition had been imposed. The petitioner if at all obtained the benefits of the fare of the petitioner's sister amounting to Rs. 1738. 30, this could have been deducted from his gratuity and all other benefits amounting to Rs. 2,00,000/- approximately could have been released, but because of the illegal insistence of the Chairman and managing Director followed by the Dy. General Manager this was never done. The petitioner's representation and the representation of his daughter had fallen in deaf ear. 12. FROM the narration of the facts it would appear that CMD wanted to retain the petitioner in service suspending him and thereafter to proceed with enquiry. This was not viewed favourably by the officers, nor did the rules permit such a course. He then thought that he was within his jurisdiction in initiating proceeding even after a person was superannuated. He referred to a judgment of the Supreme Court and asked the officer to bring a copy of such judgment which laid down, according to him, that proceeding can be initiated against an officer even after his superannuation for his alleged misdeeds before retirement. In this case the petitioner was condemned before he was heard. He referred to a judgment of the Supreme Court and asked the officer to bring a copy of such judgment which laid down, according to him, that proceeding can be initiated against an officer even after his superannuation for his alleged misdeeds before retirement. In this case the petitioner was condemned before he was heard. Affidavit was obtained from him and without affidavit he was not allowed to retire on 31st December, 1986. In the impugned letter of the Dy. General Manager, as indicated earlier, it has been stated firstly that the petitioner made a false declaration about the monthly income of his dependent sister. Secondly, this was done with full knowledge that her total income exceeded Rs. 250/- per month. Thirdly, this was made at the time of obtaining advance against LFC. Fourthly, he must admit his lapse for his deliberate suppression of fact, and lastly, he must make good the loss caused to the bank. The Deputy General manager arrived at concluded findings of fact in the said letter. It was not the petitioner's own income which was disclosed. Obviously the petitioner could not have any knowledge regarding paltry amount of interest credited to his sister's saving Bank Account. The interest credited in the Saving Bank Account could only be known to his sister when the bank pass book was given to the bank for making entries of debits and credits. Therefore, the allegation in the said letter that he made false declaration with full knowledge of his sister's earning cannot be accepted. Records do not show any such materials. The inference drawn is not based on any fact. The question of the petitioner's admitting any lapse for his alleged deliberate suppression of facts could not arise. The crucial part of the said letter is that the petitioner made false statement regarding income of the petitioner's sister at the time of obtaining advance against Leave Fare Concession. But at the time of obtaining advance on 5th of April, 1986 no interest was credited for the year 1986 in the Savings Bank Account. From January to april, 1986 the income of the petitioner's sister was Rs. 250/ -. Interest of Rs. 79/- was credited on 16th June, 1986. Had the petitioner made the declaration after 16th June, 1986 something could have been said assuming that he was aware of the debits and credits of his sister's Savings Bank Account. From January to april, 1986 the income of the petitioner's sister was Rs. 250/ -. Interest of Rs. 79/- was credited on 16th June, 1986. Had the petitioner made the declaration after 16th June, 1986 something could have been said assuming that he was aware of the debits and credits of his sister's Savings Bank Account. The authorises did not explain why if the sum of Rs. 1738. 30 was the amount of the Leave Fare Concession enjoyed by the petitioner's sister unautho-risedly, the said amount was not withheld and balance amount released. Even assuming that the petitioner had made an incorrect statement and obtained benefit for his sister, he was liable to recoup the loss caused to the bank amounting to Rs. 1738. 30 and this amount could have been deducted from the dues of the petitioner at the highest. But historical events would show how vindictively the Chairman and managing Director proceeded, followed by one dy. General Manager who even suggested to take action so that the claim of the petitioner could be 'refuted'. It is a case where the CMD and the administrator proceed with a closed mind, bias, malice and vindictiveness. It was not only harsh but cruel and unkind, inhuman and draconian. The CMD perhaps had an ill-conceived delight in forcing the petitioner, his wife, and his daughter to throw in themselves at the foot of the Chairman for mercy. Is this the way in which the head of the institution be permitted to proceed without there being any constraint on the abuse of power? 13. LET me now turn to the contentions of the Counsel. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that after the petitioner had retired no proceeding could be initiated against him. This contention has substance. 14. THE Supreme Court in the State of punjab v. Khemi Ram reported in (AIR) 1970 s. C. 214 construing the provisions of Punjab civil Service (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1952 held that if disciplinary action is sought to be taken against a Government Servant it must be done before he retires. This contention has substance. 14. THE Supreme Court in the State of punjab v. Khemi Ram reported in (AIR) 1970 s. C. 214 construing the provisions of Punjab civil Service (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1952 held that if disciplinary action is sought to be taken against a Government Servant it must be done before he retires. If a disciplinary enquiry cannot be concluded before the date of such retirement, the course open to the Government is to pass an order of suspension and refuse to permit the concerned public servant to retire and retain him in service till such enquiry is completed and final order is passed therein. From the narration of facts it is evident that the disciplinary proceeding was not initiated. The Chief Vigilance Officer found that there was no cause for initiation of any disciplinary action against the petitioner. He was allowed to retire accordingly. Even assuming that there was any case for proceeding against the petitioner it cannot be done after he has retired, relationship of master and servant having ceased. 15. MR. Ginwalla Id. Counsel for the respondents bank has contended that this is a money claim based on contract and accordingly the writ application is not maintainable. The petitioner has remedy, if at all, by way of a suit. He has contended that the bank has performed its part of obligation under the contract but the petitioner has not and accordingly he is not entitled to be paid. He has also submitted that if the petitioner makes a regret for obtaining leave travel concession for his sister which he was not entitled to obtain, the bank would be ready and willing to pay the retirement benefits to the petitioner. He has further submitted that even assuming that the Court has power to direct the Bank for making payment of the retirement benefits to the petitioner, the Court cannot direct payment of interest. He has also relied on several decisions and judgments in support of his contention to which I shall presently refer. 16. I am, however, unable to accept any of the contentions raised by Mr. Ginwalla on behalf of the Bank. The contentions raised by mr. Ginwalla manifest the attitude of the chairman of the Bank which is apparent from the facts appearing from the records reproduced earlier. 16. I am, however, unable to accept any of the contentions raised by Mr. Ginwalla on behalf of the Bank. The contentions raised by mr. Ginwalla manifest the attitude of the chairman of the Bank which is apparent from the facts appearing from the records reproduced earlier. Not only the Bank and its Chairman have illegally withheld the retirement benefits of the petitioner but they have also proceeded in a most unfair, unreasonable and unwarranted manner to deprive a person, who after long 42 years of service retired from service of the Bank. It was a deliberate attempt on the part of the Chairman of the Bank to penalise the petitioner which he could not do while he was in service. The petitioner had to come to this Court off and on for this case all the way from Delhi to Calcutta by spending considerable money. Unreasonable attitude and action of the Bank and its Chairman deserve condemnation. If such highhanded attitude is allowed to stand, the officers even after retirement will have to reach from pillar to post to get their dues. Even assuming the petitioner had overdrawn the leave fare concession, it was only rs. 1,738. 30. The respondents could have deducted the said amount and paid off his all other benefits. But that was not done. It is a case where the CMD is responsible for causing grave injustice to the petitioner who could not finalise his daughter's marriage. He was deprived of his hard earned provident fund and gratuity and other dues payable immediately after retirement. He has been deprived of the use of money. His livelihood after retirement dependent solely on the interest income which would have been earned by him, had be been paid his dues in time. The facts manifested unmistakably an ill-conceived delight on the part of the Chairman in depriving a person of his dues who retired after 42 years of service. I have already set out in extenso the noting in the file only to emphasise how and to what extent the Chairman of the Bank could go to make wasteful expenditure for the purpose of allegedly saving Rs. 1738/- of the Bank. The cost of Private Investigator, cost of sending the officer from Calcutta to Delhi, cost of other investigations would far exceed the sum of Rs. 1738. 1738/- of the Bank. The cost of Private Investigator, cost of sending the officer from Calcutta to Delhi, cost of other investigations would far exceed the sum of Rs. 1738. 30 which could have been deducted from the dues of the petitioner. The main contention of Mr. Ginwalla is that the petitioner is not entitled to invoke constitutional writ jurisdiction of this Court as the claim of the petitioner is based on contract. If there is a breach of contract the appropriate remedy is by way of suit. He also contended if a suit is filed the bank will be at liberty to set off its claim against dues payable to the petitioner. In other words in a proceeding under Article 226 no money claim can be enforced. 17. RELIANCE has been placed by Mr. Ginwalla on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of The Divisional Forest Officer v. Bishwanath Tea Co. Ltd. reported in (AIR) 1981 SC 1368. In that case the Supreme Court held as follows: "where a Company tried to enforce through writ petition the right to remove timber without the liability to pay royalty, it was held that the Company was not enforcing its right under R. 37 of the Assam land and Revenue and Local Rates Regulations, but was seeking to enforce a contractual right under the specific terms of contract of lease agreed to between the company and the Government. Such contractual right, therefore, could not be enforced in writ petition. In substance, it was a suit for refund of a royalty alleged to be unauthorisedly recovered and that could not be entertained in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. " This case has no application. Here the petitioner was governed by the service rules and the enforcement of the service rules and not any contractual obligation. There is no contract at all in the present case nor does any question of specific performance of any contract arises. The respondents perform statutory duties and a writ of Mandamus may be issued directing the respondents to perform their statutory duties by making payment of the legal dues of the petitioner. 18. RELIANCE has also been placed in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors. v. Smt. Kiran Sinha reported in (AIR)1983 SC 1265. There the Supreme Court observed as follows: "special Leave is granted. 18. RELIANCE has also been placed in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors. v. Smt. Kiran Sinha reported in (AIR)1983 SC 1265. There the Supreme Court observed as follows: "special Leave is granted. We have heard the learned Attorney general and Shri A. K. Sen, learned counsel for the respondent. The High court could not have in the circumstances of this case directed the payment of the money claimed under the insurance policies in question in a petition filed under article 226 of the Constitution. The only remedy available to the respondent in this case was a suit before a Civil Court. The judgment of the High Court is, therefore, set aside. The learned Attorney General states that he would, however, recommend to the board of the Life Insurance Corporation to pay a sum of Rs. 40,000/- to the respondent in full settlement of her claim. Shri a. K. Sen submits that the respondent would acept the sum of Rs. 40,000/- if paid, in full settlement of the claim against the Life Insurance Corporation. We hope that the amount will be paid to the respondent within six weeks. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs. " This case has also no application. Several disputes are raised in connection with the policy of Life Insurance. Those disputes may have to be decided on evidence. Accordingly supreme Court held that the appropriate forum would be suit court. Even then without recourse to the suit the claimant got relief from the Supreme Court. The Learned Attorney general very fairly said that he would recommend to the LIC to make the payment. It was expected that the Ld. Counsel appearing for the respondents in this case would feel inclined to advise the bank to pay off all the dues having regard to the suffering of the petitioner, but unfortunately a regid stand has been taken not only by the Chairman of the Bank but by the counsel too. On the contrary the Supreme Court and this Court in several decisions have emphasised that the money claim can also be enforced in a writ jurisdiction if claim flows from the statutory obligation. 19. IN the case of Chittaranjan Basu v. Union of India Anr. On the contrary the Supreme Court and this Court in several decisions have emphasised that the money claim can also be enforced in a writ jurisdiction if claim flows from the statutory obligation. 19. IN the case of Chittaranjan Basu v. Union of India Anr. reported in 79 CWN 690 the contention was raised before the Division Bench whether the writ petitioner can be granted any relief as the same involves payment of money. The Division Bench after considering several decisions of the Supreme Court held that the high Court would not normally entertain a petition under article 226 of the Constitution to enforce any claim of money arising out of a breach of contract or tort; but the payment of money may be ordered to enforce same statutory obligation. As the obligation which the appellant seeks to enforce flows from the statutory rules and is in the nature of a statutory obligation, he is entitled to an order for payment of the arrears. 20. REFERENCE may also be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of burmah Construction Co. v. State of Orissa and others reported in (AIR) 1962 SC 1320. In that case the Supreme Court observed that the high Court normally does not entertain a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution to enforce a civil liability arising out of a breach of contract or a tort to pay an amount of money due to the claimant and leaves it to the aggrieved party to agitate the question in a civil suit filed for that purpose. But an order for payment of money may sometimes be made in a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution against the State or against an officer of the state to enforce a statutory obligation. In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bhailal bhai and others reported in (AIR) 1964 S. C. 1006, the payment of tax was made under mistake under Section 72 of the Indian Contract act and so the government to whom payment was made by mistake was bound to repay the same. The question before the Supreme Court was whether the relief of repayment has to be sought by the Tax Board by an action in a Civil court or such an order can be made by the high Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution. The question before the Supreme Court was whether the relief of repayment has to be sought by the Tax Board by an action in a Civil court or such an order can be made by the high Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution. The Supreme court held as follows: "the jurisdiction conferred by Art. 226 is in very wide terms. This Article empowers the High Court to give relief by way of enforcement of fundamental rights and other rights by issuing directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari. According to the petitioners a writ in the nature of mandamus can be appropriately used where money has been paid to the Government by mistake to give relief by commanding repayment of the same. That in a number of cases the High Courts have used the writ of mandamus to enforce such repayment is not disputed. For the reasons given above we are clearly of opinion that the High Courts have power for the purpose of enforcement of fundamental rights and statutory rights to give consequential relief by ordering repayment of money realised by the Government without the authority of law. " 21. RELIANCE has been placed on a Judgment of this court in the case of Secretary to the government of West Bengal, Home department and others v. Ram Chandra Choudhury reported in (AIR) 1973 Cal. 220. In that case, the Division Bench observed as follows: "it appears that the trial court noticed the fact that at the time the Judgment was delivered, the respondent had retired from service, but the learned Judge went on to hold that in spite of such retirement the writ petition had not been rendered meaningless by reason of the retirement of the respondent because if the impugned order was quashed, the respondent would get relief in respect of arrears of pay and pension on the footing that he never reverted from the post of Deputy Superintendent, west Bengal Police. We are unable to agree with this view of the trial court. The learned Judge was clearly in error in not considering that on the day the Judgment was delivered, the respondent's claim for arrears of pay and pension, assuming he had a valid and lawful claim, stood barred by the law of limitation. We are unable to agree with this view of the trial court. The learned Judge was clearly in error in not considering that on the day the Judgment was delivered, the respondent's claim for arrears of pay and pension, assuming he had a valid and lawful claim, stood barred by the law of limitation. In the writ petition itself no relief was asked for, with regard to arrears of pay and pension. The trial Court was, therefore, not justified in holding that relief could be granted to the respondent in the writ petition, although he had retired from service. No grounds have been laid in the petition for a claim for arrears of pay and pention. The Rule Nisis issued by the court below did not call upon the appellants (respondents in the writ petition) to show cause why the arrears of pay and pension should not be paid to the respondent. The claim for arrears of pay and pension, undoubtedly, involves investigation into questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated upon in a summary proceeding, such as this. Counsel for the appellants strenuously denied and disputed the respondent's alleged claim for arrears of pay and pension. Furthermore, the writ proceedings cannot, in our view, be treated to be an action for adjudicating upon disputed questions of fact connected with recovery of money. Orders for recovery of money can be made by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, but only in a limited class of cases, namely, where the statutory provision under which money was paid was declared by this Court to be void or where money has been paid under orders which have been struck down. The third and the more formidable obstacle to the amendment of the petition, at this stage, is that an amendment relating to recovery of arrears of salary would be wholly beyond the terms of Rule Nisi which was made absolute by the trial Court. This Court sitting in appeal over the judgment and order by which the rule Nisi was made absolute, cannot, at this stage, enlarge the scope of the Rule nisi to which a return has been filed by the appellants, so as to enable the respondent to agitate the question of recovery of his arrears of salary. " 22. THIS case also does not help the contention of Mr. Ginwalla. " 22. THIS case also does not help the contention of Mr. Ginwalla. In the instant case claim for retirement benefits of the petitioner had not been disputed by the respondents. On the contrary in paragraph 5 (K) of the affidavit-in-opposition it has been clearly stated that the bank was and still is prepared to release retirement benefits and leave encashment in full after deducting the alleged L. F. C. of Rs. 1738/- on the petitioner admitting his alleged lapse and apologizing for the same. The petitioner has claimed in this application for payment of retirement benefits together with interest at the rate of 18 per cent. That being the position no investigation is necessary as there is no dispute over the claim of the petitioner. The petitioner has asked for specific sum to be given to him. What he has asked for is that he must be paid retirement benefits according to the rules. No part of it can be deducted for the alleged overdrawl of L. F. C. Where there is a statutory obligation on the part of the Bank or Public authorities to release the retirement benefits, public Authorities cannot contend that this retirement benefit depends on the investigation of the fact. No question of entitlement is involved. Admittedly, the petitioner is entitled to the benefits. That apart in view of the decisions, I have already referred to earlier, the writ Court can always direct the Public authorities to act according to law and to pay the amount due to an employee who has retired. Thus the contention of Mr. Ginwalla that the petitioner cannot invoke writ jurisdiction has no substance. His contention that the claim of the pension is forced on contractual right and hence cannot be enforced in the writ jurisdiction has no substance either. It has been held by the Supreme Court that the legal position of the Government Servant is more one of status then a contract. Government servant whose appointment though originates in a contract acquires status and thereafter is governed by his service rules and not by the terms of contract. The same principle will also apply to a case of an employee of Government undertaking as the petitioner's service conditions are regulated by statutory rules and regulations. 23. IN Roshan Lal Tandon and others. v. Union of India and Ors. The same principle will also apply to a case of an employee of Government undertaking as the petitioner's service conditions are regulated by statutory rules and regulations. 23. IN Roshan Lal Tandon and others. v. Union of India and Ors. reported in (1968-I-LLJ-576), it has been observed as follows at 582-583: we pass on to consider the next contention of the petitioner that there was contractual right as regards the condition of service applicable to the petitioner at the time he entered Grade 'd' and the condition of service could not be altered to his disadvantage afterwards by the notification issued by the Railway Board. It was said that the order of the Railway Board dated January 25, 1958, Annexure 'b' laid down that promotion to Grade C from grade D was to be based on seniority-cum-suitability and this condition of service was contractual and could not be altered thereafter to the prejudice of the petitioner. In our opinion there is no warrant for this argument. There is an offer and acceptance in every case. But once appointed to his post or office the Government servant acquires a status and his rights and obligations are no longer determined by consent of both parties, but by statute or statutory rules which may be framed and altered unilaterally by the Government. In other words the legal position of a Government servant is more one of status than of contract. The hall mark of status is the attachment to a legal relationship of rights and duties imposed by the public law and not by mere agreement of the parties. The emolument of the Government servant and his terms of service are governed by statute or statutory rules which may be unilaterally altered by the Government without the consent of the employee. It is true that art. 311 imposes constitutional restrictions upon the power of removal granted to the President and the Governor under article 310. But it is obvious that the relationship between the Government and its servant is not like an ordinary contract of service between a master and servant. The legal relationship is something entirely different something in the nature of status. It is much more than a purely contractual relationship voluntarily entered into between the parties. The duties of status are fixed by the law and in the enforcement of these duties society has an interest. The legal relationship is something entirely different something in the nature of status. It is much more than a purely contractual relationship voluntarily entered into between the parties. The duties of status are fixed by the law and in the enforcement of these duties society has an interest. In the language of jurisprudence status is a condition of membership of a group of which powers and duties are exclusively determined by law and not by agreement between the parties concerned. The matter is clearly stated by Salmond and williams and Contracts as follows: "so we may find both contractual and status obligations produced by the same transaction. The one transaction may result in the creation not only to obligations defined by the parties and so pertaining to the sphere of contract but also and concurrently of obligation defined by the law itself and so pertaining to the sphere of status. A contract of service between employer and employee while for the most part pertaining exclusively to the sphere of contract, pertains also to that of status so far as the law itself has seen fit to attach to this relation compulsory incidents such as liability to pay compensation for accidents. The extent to which the law is content to leave matters within the domain of contract to be determined by the exercise of the autonomous authority of the parties themselves or thinks fit to bring the matter within the sphere of status by authoritatively determining for itself the contents of the relationship, is a matter depending on considerations of public policy. In such contracts as those of service the tendency in modern times is to withdraw the matter more and more from the domain of contract into that of status. (Salmond and williams on Contract, 2nd edition p. 12. " 24. IN Union of India and others v. Arun kumar Roy reported in (1986-I-LLJ-290) the question before the Supreme Court was whether the terms embodied in the order of appointment should govern the service condition of employees in government service or rules governing them. The Supreme Court held that this question is no longer an open question. " 24. IN Union of India and others v. Arun kumar Roy reported in (1986-I-LLJ-290) the question before the Supreme Court was whether the terms embodied in the order of appointment should govern the service condition of employees in government service or rules governing them. The Supreme Court held that this question is no longer an open question. The Supreme Court proceeded to hold as follows at p. 295: "it is now well settled that a Government servant whose appointment, though originates in a contract, acquires a status and thereafter is governed by his service rules and not by the terms of contract. The powers of the Government under Article 309 to make rules, to regulate the service conditions of its employees are very wide and unfettered. These powers can be exercised unilaterally without the consent of the employees concerned. It will, therefore, be idle to contend that in the case of employees under the Government, the terms of the contract of appointment should prevail over the rules governing their service conditions. The origin of government service oftentimes is contractual. There is always an offer and acceptance, thus bringing it to being a completed contract between the Government and its employees. Once appointed, a Government servant acquires a status and thereafter his position is not governed by the contract of appointment. Public law governing service conditions steps in to regulate the relationship between the employer and employee. His employment and other service conditions are thereafter regulated by the appropriate statutory authority empowered to do so. Such regulation is permissible in law unilaterally without reciprocal consent. This Court made this clear in two judgments rendered by two Constitution Benches of this Court in Roshan Lal Tandon v. Union of India (1968-I-LLJ-576) and in State of Jammu and Kashmir u. Triloki Nath Khosa and others (1974-I-LLJ-121. Thus it is clear and not open to doubt that the terms and conditions of an employee under the Government who enters service on a contract will, once he is appointed, be governed by the rules governing his service conditions. It will not be permissible thereafter for him to rely upon the terms of contract which are not in consonance with the rules governing the service. It will not be permissible thereafter for him to rely upon the terms of contract which are not in consonance with the rules governing the service. The powers of the Government under Art. 309 of the Constitution to make rules regulating the service conditions of the government employees cannot in any manner, be fettered by any argument. The respondent cannot therefore succeed, either on the terms of the contract or on the notification on which the High Court has relied upon. Nor can he press into service the rule of estoppel against the Government. " The contention of the learned counsel for the bank is that the retirement benefits cannot be released unless admission is made by the petitioner of his lapses. I have already indicated that since no proceeding was initiated before his retirement the respondents can under no circumstances withhold retirement benefits. Retirement benefits are not ex-gratia payments to a person who served the bank for 42 years. It is his fundamental right to receive such payment upon his retirement unless in an appropriate proceedings and under relevant rule any part of his retirement benefits had been withheld. This is not the case here. The respondents wrongfully and illegally and without any jurisdiction and authority had directed the petitioner to admit his alleged lapses and make good the loss and thereafter receive his payment. There is no provision under which such direction can be made which was done in this case at the behest and at the dictates of the chairman and Managing Director of the Bank. 25. REFERENCE may be made to a decision of the supreme Court in the case of Deokinandan prasad v. State of Bihar reported in (1971-I-LLJ-557. In that case a writ petition was filed under Article 32 of the constitution inter alia praying for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay him the pension that he was entitled to. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner before the Supreme Court that the right to receive pension is property and the respondents have wrongfully withheld his pension. That order is violative of fundamental right under Arts. 19 (1) (f) and 31 (1) of the constitution. The Supreme Court held that the grant of pension does not depend upon an order being passed by the authorities to that effect. That order is violative of fundamental right under Arts. 19 (1) (f) and 31 (1) of the constitution. The Supreme Court held that the grant of pension does not depend upon an order being passed by the authorities to that effect. It may be that for purposes of quantifying the amount, having regard to the period and service and other allied matters, it may be necessary for the authorities to pass an order to that effect. But the right to receive pension flows to an officer not because of the said order but by virtue of the Rules. Supreme Court after considering several decisions of the supreme Court held as follows at p. 569: "pension is not a bounty payable on the sweet will and pleasure of the Government and that, on the other hand, the right to pension is a valuable right vesting in a government Servant. Having due regard to the above decisions we are of the opinion that the right of the petitioner to receive pension is property under Article 31 (1) and by a mere executive order the State had no power to withhold the same. Similarly the said claim is also property under Article 19 (1) (f) and it is not saved by Sub-Art. (5) of Art. 19. Therefore it follows that the order dated june 12, 1968 denying the petitioner's right to receive pension affects the fundamental right of the petitioner under Arts. 19 (1) (f)and 31 (1) of the Constitution, and as such the writ petition under Article 32 is maintainable. It may be that under the Pensions act (Act 23 of 1871) there is a bar against a civil court entertaining any suit relating to the matters mentioned therein. That does not stand in the way of a writ of mandamus being issued to the State to properly consider the claim of the petitioner for payment of pension according to law. " 26. FROM the aforesaid decision it would be clear that the right to receive pension is not a bounty and an employee has a fundamental right to receive the pension under the provisions of the regulations governing the service of an incumbent. Although the said judgment relates to withholding of pension, the same principle would govern the case of retirement benefits withheld arbitrarily and wrongfully without any rhyme and reason. Although the said judgment relates to withholding of pension, the same principle would govern the case of retirement benefits withheld arbitrarily and wrongfully without any rhyme and reason. Reliance has also been placed in the case of Dayal Saran Sanan v. Union of India reported in (AIR) 1980 S. C. 554. In that case the appellant was holding the post of Superintendent in the Military Engineering Service substantively. He having failed to comply with an order of transfer, was informed on 29th january 1966 by the Chief Engineer that under article 189 of the Civil Service Regulations he no longer had any lien on his appointment. The claim of the appellant on attaining the age of superannuation for pension and gratuity having been denied by the High Court, the appellant filed an appeal by special leave before the Supreme Court. There the Supreme court held as follows: "we consider that the respondents were not entitled to withhold the pension of the appellant unless the facts fell within the provisions of Articles 352 and 353 of the civil Services Regulations. It was not suggested by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the case fell within either of these Articles. The appellant was holding the post of Superintendent substantively and Article 352 had no application whatsoever, nor was the appellant dismissed or removed for misconduct, insolvency or inefficiency so as to attract Article 352. We, therefore, hold that the appellant was entitled to be paid his pension and gratuity on the basis of his service up to february 12, 1965. Let a direction issue accordingly. The appeal is allowed with costs in these terms. " 27. IT may be mentioned at this stage that the contentions raised by the bank in the affidavit or through their learned Counsel Mr. Ginwalla are not the contentions or grounds raised in the impugned letter dated 17/19th august, 1987. It is now well settled that public order publicly made in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of the explanation subsequently given by the officer making the order. 28. REFERENCE may be made to a decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Police v. Gordhandas reported in (AIR) 1952 S. C. 16. It is now well settled that public order publicly made in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of the explanation subsequently given by the officer making the order. 28. REFERENCE may be made to a decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Police v. Gordhandas reported in (AIR) 1952 S. C. 16. In that case the question was whether the order passed by the authority was an order of cancellation and the order was in fact made by the concerned authority or not. The Supreme court held in that context as follows: "an attempt was made by referring to the commissioner's affidavit to show that this was really an order of cancellation made by him and that the order was his order and not that of the Government. We are clear that public orders, publicy made in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant or of what was in his mind or what he intended to do. Public orders made by the public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the action and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself. " The last contention of Mr. Ginwalla is with regard to the payment of interest. It is his contention that the Writ Court cannot direct payment of interest in the absence of any usage or contract, of interest. He also contended that the interest cannot be awarded as and by way of damages. He has relied on in the case of union of India v. West Punjab Factories Limited reported in (AIR) 1966 S. C. 395. 29. RELIANCE has also been placed in the judgment of Privy Council in the case of Bengal nagpur Co. Ltd. v. Buttonji Ramji and others reported in (AIR) 1938 Privy Council 67. He has relied on in the case of union of India v. West Punjab Factories Limited reported in (AIR) 1966 S. C. 395. 29. RELIANCE has also been placed in the judgment of Privy Council in the case of Bengal nagpur Co. Ltd. v. Buttonji Ramji and others reported in (AIR) 1938 Privy Council 67. In that case it was of the view that the Court has no authority to allow interest unless there is an agreement for payment of interest at a fixed rate, or it is payable by the usage of trade having the force of law, or under the provision of any substantive law entitling the plaintiff to recover interest, as, for example, under Section 80 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1961 the Court may award interest at the rate of 6% per annum where no rate of interest was specified in the promissory note or bill of exchange. 30. MR. Ginwalla contended that in the instant case there is neither usage nor any contract, express or implied, to justify the award of interest. Nor is interest payable by virtue of any provision of the law governing the case. Whether or not interest can be awarded in a case where the suit has been filed claiming the damages for breach of contract is not the issue before us. The question is whether in a. writ jurisdiction any interest can be awarded or not. I shall presently refer to the case where the supreme Court has awarded interest on the retirement benefits. That apart even though there is no usage of contract, express or implied, or of any provision of law, interest could be awarded by the Court as the interest is the compensation for the loss suffered by the receipient of the money for wrongful deprivation of such user. The petitioner has been deprived of his retirement benefits from the date when he had retired on 31st December, 1986. The Bank, is, therefore, under an obligation to compensate the petitioner by paying of interest, apart from any other liability for causing immense mental suffering to the petitioner and his family. The Supreme Court in O. P. Gupta v. Union of India reported in (1988-I-LLJ-453), held as follows at p. 464: "normally, this Court, as a settled practice, has been making direction for payment of interest at 12 per cent on delayed payment of pension. The Supreme Court in O. P. Gupta v. Union of India reported in (1988-I-LLJ-453), held as follows at p. 464: "normally, this Court, as a settled practice, has been making direction for payment of interest at 12 per cent on delayed payment of pension. There is no reason for us to depart from that practice in the facts of the present case. " The Supreme Court in the case of Grindlays bank Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer, Calcutta reported in (AIR) 1980 SC 656 observed that the court has the power to pass such order as the justice of the case requires. In the case of Shiv Shanker Dal Mills v. State of Haryana and others reported in (AIR)1980 SC 1037 the Supreme Court held as follows: "another point, in our jurisdictional social justice is a pervasive presence, and so, save in special situations, it is far better to be guided by the strategy of equity by asking those who claim the service of the judicial process to embrace the basic rule of distributive justice, while moulding the relief, by consenting to restore little sums, taken in little transactions, from little persons, to whom they belong. " In the case of Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. v. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha and Others reported in (1980-I-LLJ-137), the Supreme court held as follows (p. 157): "dual jurisdictional issues arise here which have been argued at some length before us. The position taken up by Sri Sen was that the High Court could not, under article 226, direct reinstatement, and even if it felt that the arbitrator had gone wrong in refusing reinstatement, the court can only demolish the order and direct the arbitrator to reconsider the issue. What belonged, as a discretionary power, to a tribunal or other adjudicatory body, could not be wrested by the writ court. To put it pithily, regarding the relief of reinstatement, the arbitrator could, but would not, and the High Court would, but could not. The basis of this submission, as we conceive it, is the traditional limitations woven around high prerogative writs. Without examining the correctness of this limitation, we disregard it because while Article 226 has been inspired by the royal writs, its sweep and scope exceed hide-bound British processes of yore. The basis of this submission, as we conceive it, is the traditional limitations woven around high prerogative writs. Without examining the correctness of this limitation, we disregard it because while Article 226 has been inspired by the royal writs, its sweep and scope exceed hide-bound British processes of yore. We are what we are because our Constitution framers have felt the need for a pervasive reserve power in the higher judiciary to right wrongs under our conditions. Heritage cannot hamstring nor custom constrict where the language used is wisely wide. The British paradigms are not necessarily models in the Indian republic. So broad are the expressive expressions designedly used in Article 226 that any order which should have been made by the lower authority could be made by the High Court. The very width of the power and the disinclination to meddle, except where gross injustice or fatal illegality and the like are present, inhibit the exercise but do not abolish the power. " 31. IN the case of The Mewbgani Sugar Mills co. Ltd. and Others v. Union of India and others reported in (AIR) SC 1152 the Supreme Court considered the scope of inherent powers of the court. Although the Court cannot go against any statutory prescription, but the Supreme court observed "if there is to be relief, we must construct it here by simple legal engineering. " In that case complex direction was given for payment of money which could only be given in suits. 32. HAVING regard to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court it is evident that the Writ Court has the jurisdiction to direct the bank to make payment of the retirement benefits with interest. Before I part with this case, I must summarise a few facts which have persuaded me to award interest and costs in this instant case. (a) No proceeding was initiated against the petitioner for any contravention of the Discipline Rules before his retirement. He was allowed to retire on 31st December, 1986. A fare-well party was also arranged. Noproceed-ing can be, nor has it been, initiated for any alleged misconduct after retirement of the petitioner. (b) Under the rules Provident Fund and other benefits shall be paid within a month from the date of the retirement. That was not done. He was not informed until August, 1987 why his dues were not being paid. Noproceed-ing can be, nor has it been, initiated for any alleged misconduct after retirement of the petitioner. (b) Under the rules Provident Fund and other benefits shall be paid within a month from the date of the retirement. That was not done. He was not informed until August, 1987 why his dues were not being paid. (c) The bank incurred wasteful expenditure by appointing private investigator to find out the income of the petitioner's dependent sister. An officer was deputed to Delhi for the purpose of serving order of suspension before his retirement. But it was not done as there was no case against him from the vigilance angle. Officer's air-fare had to be paid and the officer was entitled to T. A. and D. A. and other allowances for journey to and from Delhi. (d) The petitioner was not entitled to any pension under the Rules. The benefits payable to him upon his retirement are the only source of his livelihood. He has to maintain his family with the interest that would accrue on the sum that ought to have been paid to him upon his retirement. (e) Had he deposited the entire sum of about Rs. 2. 00 lakhs in the Bank, it would have earned more than Rs. 30,000/- by this time even at a conservative estimate. He was deprived of this benefit. (f) So long he does not get the retirement benefits, he is unable to repay the loan he had obtained from the bank for construction of his house. The loan which would have been repaid in January, 1987 cannot be repaid until the retirement benefits are paid to him. The result is that he has to pay interest from 1st january, 1987 till the date of repayment which otherwise he would not have to pay. He has been fastened with the liability for which he was not responsible at all. (g) He has to attend this Court for filing writ petition, for affirming the affidavit in reply, as also on several occasions when the matter was heard. This was too much for a retired employee without any means of livelihood. (h) The Regional Manager, Delhi promised that upon the petitioner vacating the quarters provided by the bank, all his dues would be paid. This was too much for a retired employee without any means of livelihood. (h) The Regional Manager, Delhi promised that upon the petitioner vacating the quarters provided by the bank, all his dues would be paid. The petitioner complied with the said direction and vacated the quarters by february, 1987, but be was not paid his retirement benefits. (i) Marriage of the petitioner's daughter could not be settled as the retirement benefits had not been paid to him. (j) In spite of the recommendations of the officers being the Deputy General Manager and general Manager for release of the entire benefits, the Chairman and Managing Director did not proceed on the basis of such recommendations. (k) At best the petitioner had obtained a sum of Rs. 1,738/- for his dependent sister for which the entire benefits had been withheld for more than one and half years illegally and malafide. (I) The petitioner was never informed that upon the payment of Rs. 1,738/- he might draw his retirement benefits. The high-handedness of the Chairman and Managing Director as manifested from the records is a matter which should be viewed with grave concern by this court so that such conduct is not repeated in future, depriving an employee of the benefits after 42 years of service with the Bank. (m) The sister of the petitioner was not physically fit and she was admittedly drawing rs. 250/- at the material time. She was solely dependent on her brother. The interest of Rs. 2/3 per month assuming such interest was income did not perhaps deposit (sic) of the petitioner. As a matter of fact, the limit of Rs. 250 - was enhanced to Rs. 500/- by the 4th bipartite settlement. (n) Last but not the least, the legal expenses which have been incurred by the bank by engaging a very senior and eminent counsel who echoed the grim determination of the chairman of the Bank to force a person to death by starvation. The Government shall enquire into wasteful legal expenses that had been incurred in this case by engaging a very senior counsel to fight out the case like this. 33. FOR the reasons aforesaid this application is allowed. The impugned order or direction contained in the letter dated 17/19th august, 1987 is set aside. (a) After retaining a sum of Rs. The Government shall enquire into wasteful legal expenses that had been incurred in this case by engaging a very senior counsel to fight out the case like this. 33. FOR the reasons aforesaid this application is allowed. The impugned order or direction contained in the letter dated 17/19th august, 1987 is set aside. (a) After retaining a sum of Rs. 1,738/-towards the alleged over-drawn amount in respect of leave fare concession obtained for the dependent sister of the petitioner the respondents shall pay all retirement benefits of the petitioner including provident fund, gratuity and leave encashment benefits within 3 days from the date of communication of this order with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from 1st January, 1987 till the date of payment. (b) The said sum of Rs. 1,738/- shall be retained in a fixed deposit account untill the time hereinafter mentioned. (c) The Secretary, Department of Banking, government of India shall decide whether the petitioner was entitled to leave fare concession for his dependent sister on the facts and in the circumstances of this case as would appear from the records of the bank and set out in the judgment and in the light of the observations made therein. The Secretary shall hear the petitioner as well as the officers who recommended the release of the entire dues to the petitioner without any deduction. If the Secretary decides the issue in favour of the petitioner the bank shall thereupon release the said amount with interest accrued thereon to the petitioner. If the Secretary holds otherwise, he shall give the reasons therefor, and the Bank will be entitled to retain the sum. (d) The bank shall pay costs to the petitioner assessed at 200 GMs having regard to the fact that the petitioner had to come from delhi to move this writ application, affirm affidavit and to be present at the time of hearing of this writ application. Such costs shall be paid within 3 days from the date of communication of this order. (e) In view of the stand taken by the Chairman and Managing Director of the bank, notwithstanding series of representations made by the petitioner as well as his wife, in withholding the entire retirement benefits so long, the chairman and Managing Director shall pay costs personally assessed at 200 GM. (e) In view of the stand taken by the Chairman and Managing Director of the bank, notwithstanding series of representations made by the petitioner as well as his wife, in withholding the entire retirement benefits so long, the chairman and Managing Director shall pay costs personally assessed at 200 GM. Such costs shall be paid within 3 days from the date of communication of this order. It is made quite clear that such costs shall not be reimbursable to the chairman and Managing Director. (f) Interest and costs which are directed to be paid in terms of this order shall be recovered from the salary of the Chairman and Managing director of the bank and other officers who are responsible for withholding the entire retirement benefits of the petitioner so long. (g) The Minister in Charge of Department of Banking shall enquire as to the steps that may be taken against the Chairman and managing Director and other officers responsible for withholding the entire retirement benefits of the petitioner so long, when the claim, if any, of the bank was a paltry sum of rs. 1,738. 00 and incurring expenses for private investigation deputing officers from Calcutta to Delhi and payment of T. A. and D. A. for such officer and other incidental expenses made for the paltry sum of Rs. 1,738. 00. (h) The responsibility of the Chairman and managing Director and others shall be fixed and appropriate action shall be taken by the government. 34. LET a copy of the judgment be forwarded by the Registrar, Appellate Side forthwith to the Minister-in-charge of the department of Banking. This order will not prevent the petitioner to initiate appropriate proceeding against the bank, Chairman and Managing Director and the officers who are responsible in withholding the entire retirement benefits of the petitioner for more than one and half years for recovery of damages.