Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 533 (UTT)

Dharmendra Kumar Rathi v. Central Bank of India

2024-08-07

MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, PANKAJ PUROHIT

body2024
JUDGMENT : (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) : Petitioner was appointed as Agriculture Finance Officer in Central Bank of India on 01.12.1981. He was promoted to next higher scale from time to time and ultimately he was promoted as Senior Manager in Middle Management Scale-III on 11.06.2011. He was dismissed from service by Regional Manager, Dehradun vide order dated 04.10.2013 under Regulation 4(j) of Central Bank of India Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976. Petitioner filed an appeal challenging the punishment of dismissal, which was dismissed by Deputy General Manager, Central Bank of India vide order dated 22.10.2014. 2. It is not in dispute that an FIR was lodged against the petitioner for offence punishable under Sections 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 r/w Section 420 of IPC, which resulted in his conviction and he was sentenced to four years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.15,000/- by learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, Dehradun vide judgment dated 11.08.2014. 3. Petitioner filed an appeal which is pending before this Court and is registered as Criminal Appeal No.303 of 2014 in which, petitioner was granted bail and fine was also suspended by learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 12.12.2015. 4. In this writ petition, petitioner has sought the following reliefs:- “i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to allow the compassionate allowance to the petitioner in terms of Regulation 31 of Central Bank of India (Employees) Pension Regulation, 1995. ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to pay the amount of gratuity and leave encashment to the petitioner.” 5. Petitioner relies upon the Central Bank of India (Employees’) Pension Regulations, 1995 for contending that he is entitled to compassionate allowance not exceeding 2/3rd of pension amount, which would be admissible to him, on the basis of service, which he rendered in the Bank till his dismissal from service. 6. Regulation 31 of the aforesaid Regulations on which petitioner relies heavily is extracted below:- “31. Compassionate Allowance.- 1. 6. Regulation 31 of the aforesaid Regulations on which petitioner relies heavily is extracted below:- “31. Compassionate Allowance.- 1. An employee, who is dismissed or removed or terminated from service, shall forfeit his pension: Provided that the authority higher than the authority competent to dismiss or remove or terminate him from service may, if (i) such dismissal, removal, or termination is on or after the 1st day of November, 1993, and (ii) the case is deserving of special consideration, sanction a compassionate allowance not exceeding two-thirds of the pension which would have been admissible to him on the basis of the qualifying service rendered up to the date of his dismissal, removal or termination. 2. The Compassionate Allowance sanctioned under the proviso to sub-regulation (1) shall not be less than the amount of minimum pension payable under Regulation 36 of these regulations.” 7. Learned counsel for the Bank however submits that after dismissal from service, petitioner is not entitled to any benefit in view of provision contained in Regulation 22(1) and (2) of the aforesaid Regulations, which reads as under:- “22. Forfeiture of service- (1) Resignation or dismissal or removal or termination of an employee from the service of the Bank shall entail forfeiture of his entire past service and consequently shall not qualify for Pensionery benefits; (2) An interruption in the service of a Bank employee entails forfeiture of his past service, except in the following cases, namely:- (a) authorised leave of absence; (b) suspension, where it is immediately followed by reinstatement, whether in the same or a different post, or where the bank employee dies or is permitted to retire or is retired on attaining the age of compulsory retirement while under suspension; (c) transfer to non-qualifying service in an establishment under the control of the Government or Bank if such transfer has been ordered by a competent authority in the public interest; (d) joining time while on transfer from one post to another.” 8. The submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner is devoid of merit. Regulation 31 is a special provision meant for benefit of employees who have been dismissed or removed from service while Regulation 22 is applicable generally to all employees. Thus Regulation 31 is an exception to Regulation 22. Even otherwise also, special law prevails over general law is a well known principle of law. Regulation 31 is a special provision meant for benefit of employees who have been dismissed or removed from service while Regulation 22 is applicable generally to all employees. Thus Regulation 31 is an exception to Regulation 22. Even otherwise also, special law prevails over general law is a well known principle of law. Thus Regulation 31 cannot be said to be eclipsed by Regulation 22. 9. Learned counsel for the Bank submits that as per proviso to Regulation 31 (1), decision regarding compassionate allowance has to be taken by an Authority higher than the Authority, who dismissed the petitioner. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner applied for compassionate allowance by making two applications, submitted on 28.01.2018 and 24.02.2020, however no decision has been taken thereupon. 11. Learned counsel for the Bank submits that the applications were made by petitioner to the Chairman and Managing Director of the Bank, while application should have been made to Authority one rank above the Disciplinary Authority. 12. We accordingly dispose of the writ petition by permitting petitioner to make fresh application for compassionate allowance to the Competent Authority, i.e., an Officer one rank above the Disciplinary Authority. If petitioner makes such an application within two weeks’ from today, the Competent Authority shall take decision thereupon, as per law, within eight weeks’ from the date of its receipt.