Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2839 (ALL)

Arun Kumar Verma v. Chief General Manager, SBI

2016-08-17

DILIP GUPTA, MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA

body2016
JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner, whose father late Ashok Verma was an employee of State Bank of India and was dismissed from service by order dated 19 January 1993, has filed the instant petition questioning the validity of a communication dated 25 April 2016 sent by Deputy General Manager (Vigilance), State Bank of India informing the petitioner that his representation for payment of arrears of pension of his late father has been rejected. The petitioner has also prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent Bank to pay arrears of pensionary benefits admissible to his father from 6 April 1990, on which date his father retired upto 9 November 2010 when he died with interest and thereafter for payment of family pension with consequential benefits. 2. It emerges from the facts stated in the writ petition and the impugned communication that the father of the petitioner was dismissed from service on 19 January 1993 after holding a disciplinary inquiry. The appeal filed against the said order was dismissed on 5 March 1994. The dismissal order as well as the appellate order were challenged by the father of the petitioner by filing Writ Petition No.18537 of 1994, which was dismissed on 13 March 2003. The father of the petitioner thereafter filed a review application, which was also dismissed on 22 September 2006. He, thereafter, assailed the aforesaid orders by filing S.L.P. No.2925 of 2007, which also came to be dismissed. The father of the petitioner, thereafter, died on 9 November 2010. In the year 2016, Savitri Devi, the mother of the petitioner, filed Writ Petition No.6503 of 2016 claiming that though her husband retired on 6 April 1990 but by that time, the supplementary charge sheet dated 31 March 1990 on basis of which he was dismissed from service, was not served upon him and consequently, the disciplinary proceedings could not have been taken after his retirement. It was, therefore, sought to be contended that the order of dismissal passed against her husband on 19 January 1993 was illegal. However, the writ petition was ultimately withdrawn by the mother with liberty to pursue such other remedy as may be available to her under law. 3. The petitioner, thereafter, claims to have made a representation before the Bank for payment of retiral benefits of his late father by treating him to have retired on 6 April 1990. However, the writ petition was ultimately withdrawn by the mother with liberty to pursue such other remedy as may be available to her under law. 3. The petitioner, thereafter, claims to have made a representation before the Bank for payment of retiral benefits of his late father by treating him to have retired on 6 April 1990. It is in response to the said representation that the impugned communication has been sent informing the petitioner that the issues sought to be raised stand settled by the High Court in the previous litigation and thus, the representation filed by him cannot be accepted. 4. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the representation which the petitioner had made before the authorities was based on facts which subsequently came to his knowledge in view of the information supplied to him by the respondent Bank on 30 May 2015 in response to the application submitted under the Right to Information Act, 2005. Learned counsel pointed out that the charge sheet dated 31 March 1990 could not be served on his father until 6 April 1990, when he retired and, therefore in such circumstances, the respondent Bank was not justified in rejecting the representation on the ground that the issues stand settled in the previous litigation. 5. From a perusal of the judgement of this Court dated 13 March 2003 in Writ Petition No.18537 of 1994 that was filed by the father of the petitioner, a copy whereof was provided to the Court by the counsel for the petitioner at the time of hearing, it transpires that though the father of the petitioner who was due to retire on 30 November 1989 but before that date his services were extended until 6 April 1990 by order dated 1 April 1989, the Bank issued a charge sheet to him on 17 March 1990 and a supplementary charge sheet on 31 March 1990. On the basis of the report of Inquiry Officer he was dismissed from service on 19 January 1993. The order of dismissal was challenged before this Court primarily on the ground that the order dated 1 April 1989 extending the service of the father of the petitioner was served upon him on 10 April 1990 after the extended period of service came to an end. The order of dismissal was challenged before this Court primarily on the ground that the order dated 1 April 1989 extending the service of the father of the petitioner was served upon him on 10 April 1990 after the extended period of service came to an end. It was thus sought to be urged that he having retired on 1 April 1989, the disciplinary proceedings could not have been initiated after his superannuation. A Division Bench of this Court by judgement dated 13 March 2003 repelled the said contention holding that the father of the petitioner had worked after 1 April 1989 and consequently, the Bank was justified in issuing the charge sheet to him and in dispensing with his services on the basis of the findings returned in course of disciplinary proceedings. 6. The father of the petitioner filed a review application seeking review of the judgement of the Division Bench dated 13 March 2003. Therein, a specific plea was raised that the supplementary charge sheet dated 31 March 1990 was served upon him after his retirement on 6 April 1990. The other plea which was raised therein was in relation to his acquittal by the Special Judge, Anti Corruption, Lucknow by order dated 30 January 2006. However, none of these pleas found favour with the Court and the review petition was dismissed by order dated 22 September 2006. The father of the petitioner preferred Special Leave Petition bearing No.2925 of 2007 assailing these orders but this was dismissed. In such view of the matter, this Court is unable to accept the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the instant petition has been filed on new grounds which had not been considered in the previous litigation. Even otherwise, the petitioner cannot be permitted to challenge the dismissal order at this belated stage. 7. As noted above, the mother of the petitioner had also filed Writ Petition No.6503 of 2016 raising similar pleas and for the same relief but the petition was got dismissed as withdrawn on 16 February 2016 with liberty to pursue such other remedy as may be available. It has not been disclosed in the writ petition as to what legal recourse was taken by her mother after the dismissal of the writ petition filed by her before this Court. It has not been disclosed in the writ petition as to what legal recourse was taken by her mother after the dismissal of the writ petition filed by her before this Court. It seems that thereafter the petitioner came in picture and filed the instant writ petition once again raising the same pleas. This Court finds that although the factum of filing of the earlier writ petition by the father of the petitioner has been disclosed but neither the copy of the order dated 13 March 2003 nor the copy of the review application nor the judgment passed on the review application have been filed with an intent to suppress material facts from the Court. It was on the insistence of the Court that the counsel for the petitioner supplied a photostat copy of the order of the Division Bench dated 13 March 2003 dismissing the writ petition filed by the father of the petitioner and a copy of the review petition. This Court is of the firm opinion that filing of the instant petition by the petitioner amounts to gross abuse of the process of law. 8. In the circumstances aforesaid, we dismiss the instant petition with cost of Rs.10,000/-, which the petitioner shall deposit before the Registrar General of the Court within a period of one month from today. On deposit of such cost, it shall be transmitted to the account of Allahabad High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre. If the petitioner fails to deposit the cost, the Registrar General of the Court shall inform the District Magistrate/ District Collector, Kanpur Nagar for recovery of the said amount as arrears of land revenue and after recovering the said amount, it shall be transmitted to the Registrar General of the Court for depositing it in the account of Allahabad High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre.