Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1276 (KAR)

Indian Overseas Bank v. Radhakrishna Setty

2022-09-26

ALOK ARADHE, S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY

body2022
JUDGMENT VISHWAJITH SHETTY, J. - These two intra court appeals arise out of the order dtd. 13/7/2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.10730/2010, and therefore, the same are clubbed, heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and also perused the material on record. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to by the rank assigned to them in the writ petition. 4. Facts leading to filing of these appeals briefly narrated are, the petitioner who was working as a Manager was proceeded against for the charges levelled against him in the charge sheet dtd. 23/3/1987 (Annexure-B) and pursuant to the enquiry held in respect of the alleged charges, he was dismissed from service on 22/2/1989. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner had filed W.P.No.6826/1990 and this Court allowed the said writ petition on 24/10/1997 and having quashed the order of dismissal dtd. 22/2/1989, had remitted the matter for fresh consideration. The said order was upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.96/1998 by order dtd. 3/3/1998. Pursuant to the remand, the Disciplinary Authority had passed the order dtd. 10/8/2007 imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement against the petitioner and the period spent under suspension/dismissal i.e., from 13/8/1984 to 18/12/2006 was considered as not being treated as one spent on duty for which service benefits were denied to the petitioner. The order dtd. 10/8/2007 was challenged by the petitioner in W.P.No.10730/2010. The learned Single Judge of this Court while confirming the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement, had held that the respondents were not justified in denying the benefit of continuity of service for the period from 13/8/1984 to 18/12/2006 and accordingly directed the respondents to count the said period as continuity of service for the purpose of pensionary benefits to be paid to the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the said order, the respondents have filed W.P.No.2964/2018, while the petitioner has filed W.A.No.2269/2019. 5. Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that the punishment of compulsory retirement imposed is not disproportionate to the charges leveled against the petitioner, and therefore, the learned Single Judge was not justified in passing the impugned order. Being aggrieved by the said order, the respondents have filed W.P.No.2964/2018, while the petitioner has filed W.A.No.2269/2019. 5. Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that the punishment of compulsory retirement imposed is not disproportionate to the charges leveled against the petitioner, and therefore, the learned Single Judge was not justified in passing the impugned order. He submits that no reasons have been assigned by the learned Single Judge for directing the respondents to count the service of the petitioner from 13/8/1984 to 18/12/2006 as continuity of service for the purpose of pensionary benefits to be paid to the petitioner. In support of his contentions, he has relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of BOLORAM BORDOLOI VS LAKHIMI GAOLIA BANK & OTHERS, JT 2021(2) SC .and CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE VS HC (GD) OM PRAKASH. (2022)5 SCC 100 . 6. Per contra, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that though the charge sheet was issued on 23/3/1987, the order of compulsory retirement was passed on 10/8/2007. He submits that after the remittal of the matter by this Court, the respondents did not proceed with the enquiry and they kept the petitioner under suspension throughout without even paying the subsistence allowance. He submits that for nearly 23 years, the petitioner was denied employment for no fault of his. He submits that though the petitioner has raised several grounds in his appeal, he would be restricting his grievance only in so far as denial of subsistence allowance payment. 7. In reply, learned Counsel for the respondents submits that the subsistence allowance has been paid to the petitioner throughout and the Bank is not due to pay any amount to the petitioner towards subsistence allowance. 8. The material on record would go to show that the petitioner was initially kept under suspension from 13/8/1984 onwards. However, the charge sheet was issued against him only on 28/3/1987. The order of dismissal passed against the petitioner subsequently was set aside by this Court in W.P.No.6826/1990 and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration and the said order was upheld by the Division of this Court in W.A.No.96/1998 vide order dtd. 3/3/1998. However, thereafter, there was no progress in the disciplinary proceedings and only on 10/8/2007, the order of compulsory retirement was passed by the respondents. 9. 3/3/1998. However, thereafter, there was no progress in the disciplinary proceedings and only on 10/8/2007, the order of compulsory retirement was passed by the respondents. 9. The learned Single Judge taking into consideration the charges leveled against the petitioner and the fact that the petitioner was working in a financial institution, has rightly refused to interfere with the order of compulsory retirement passed against him. However, taking into consideration that the respondents themselves were guilty in not proceeding against the petitioner in the disciplinary proceedings after the matter was remitted, the learned Single Judge has rightly held that the respondents were not justified in denying the benefit of continuity of service for the period from 13/8/1984 to 18/12/2006 even if no monetary benefits were allowed for the said period. It is under these circumstances, the learned Single Judge had directed the respondents to count the service for the period from 13/8/1984 to 18/12/2006 as continuity of service for the purpose of pensionary benefits to be paid to the petitioner. We find no infirmity in the said order passed by the learned Single Judge. 10. In Boloram Bordoloi's case and Om Prakash's case supra on which reliance has been placed by the learned Counsel for the respondents, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the punishment of compulsory retirement by the disciplinary authority was not disproportionate to the charges leveled. In the instant case also, the learned Single Judge has refused to interfere with the order of punishment of compulsory retirement and has directed to count the period from 13/8/1984 to 18/12/2006 as one spent on duty only for the purpose of pensionary benefits to be paid to the petitioner taking into consideration the unexplained delay on the part of the respondents in proceeding further against the petitioner in the disciplinary proceedings and passing appropriate orders against him. Under the circumstances, the judgments in Boloram Bordoloi's case and Om Prakash's case supra will not be of any aid to the respondents in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 11. In so far as the grievance of the petitioner that the respondents have not paid any subsistence allowance for the period during which he was placed under suspension is concerned, the respondents have seriously disputed the said contention of the petitioner stating that they have paid the subsistence allowance throughout and there are no dues to pay any balance. 11. In so far as the grievance of the petitioner that the respondents have not paid any subsistence allowance for the period during which he was placed under suspension is concerned, the respondents have seriously disputed the said contention of the petitioner stating that they have paid the subsistence allowance throughout and there are no dues to pay any balance. Under the circumstances, we deem it fit to permit the petitioner to submit a representation to the respondents for payment of subsistence allowance for the period during which allegedly the same is not paid to him. In the event of such a representation being submitted by the petitioner, the respondents shall consider the same in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders on the same within a further period of two months from the date of receipt of such representation from the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ appeals are disposed of.