A retired bank Assistant General Manager challenged the permanent withdrawal of his pension imposed after disciplinary proceedings under the bank's Pension Regulations. The Court held Regulations 43/45 operate independently of Regulation 48, so Board consultation was unnecessary, and rejected the petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 15294 OF 2020 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
SHRI. SUBRAYA R HEGDE S/O LATE SHRI RAMA HEGDE AGE 64 YEARS RESIDING AT FLAT NO. 604, 5(B) KALPATARU ESTATE PHASE II PIMPLE GURAV, PUNE- 411 061.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI.G.K. BHAT., SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SMT. SUDHA D, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by VINAYAKA B V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DHARWAD Date: 2024.08.09 15:17:10 +0530
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. T.P. MUTTANNA, ADVOCATE)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE GENERAL MANAGER DATED 30.06.2017 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND QUASH THE ARTICLE OF CHARGES DATED 28.11.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-D AND ISSUE DIRECTION TO RETURN THE PENSION WITHDRAWAL BY THE RESPONDENTS VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ALSO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO PAY THE PENSION WITH APPROPRIATE INTEREST.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner as of the month of April 2016
was working as an Assistant General Manager with the first respondent, and he is aggrieved by the Disciplinary and Appellate Authorities' orders dated 30.06.2017 and 06.06.2018 respectively. The Disciplinary Authority by the impugned order dated
30.06.2017 has imposed punishment of withdrawal
of pension to the full extent permanently citing Regulation 43 and 45 of the Canara Bank [Employees'] Pension Regulations, 1995 [ Pension Regulations ], and the Appellate Authority by its order dated 06.06.2018 has affirmed the Disciplinary Authority's order. These orders are after the conclusion of the inquiry proceedings with the Inquiry Officer filing his report on 21.04.2017 opining that the charges against the petitioner are proved.
private enterprise beyond his powers and without entry in the Bank's book. It is also alleged that Letter of Credit is issued manually when the relevant Regulation/norms required the Letter of Credit to be issued digitally.
for the petitioner, submits that the Regulations 43 and 45 of the Pension Regulations could not have
been invoked to impose the punishment of withdrawal of pension because the petitioner was not found guilty as of the date of the Disciplinary Authority's order and if the petitioner as of that date was not found guilty by the concerned Court, the Disciplinary Authority could have only invoked Regulation 48 of the Pension Regulations provided that the Bank could assert any pecuniary loss caused because of the criminal breach of trust or forgery with prior consultation with the Bank's Board.
6. Sri T.P. Muthanna, the learned counsel for
the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the Disciplinary Authority has opined that the petitioner attempted fraud in issuing manually the Letter of Credit without reflecting the same in the records giving room for a claim of Rs.300 crores against the Bank. The learned counsel submits that this opinion cannot be construed as being conclusive on the financial loss to the Bank inasmuch as in the proceedings before the Dispute Resolution Committee over the inter se dispute between the Bank and Bank of India was pending.
recommended that the Bank should pay a sum of' Rs.225 crores to the Bank of India and remaining amount should be borne by the aforesaid Bank by itself. In fact, the learned counsel has placed on record a copy of the proceedings of the Committee
dated 11.09.2003 to buttress his case in this regard
and refute the assertion that the Bank has not suffered any financial loss.
that if at all any punishment could be, it should have been only under Regulation 48 of the Pension Regulations after consulting the Board and not under Regulations 43 and 45 thereof, submits that:
Officer Employees' [Discipline and Appeals] Regulation, 1976 must be followed before withholding/ withdrawing pension .
The learned counsel argues that in the present case
with the petitioner being found prima facie guilty, show cause notice is issued on 12.09.2016, that the departmental proceedings are instituted with the article of charges being served on the petitioner on 28.11.2016 and that the impugned orders are the result of the conclusion in the Inquiry Report and consideration thereof by the Disciplinary Authority.
Whether the Disciplinary Authority could have denied pension to the petitioner under Regulation 43 and 45 of the Pension Regulation without consulting the Board as contemplated under Regulation 48 thereof.
10. The provisions of Regulation 43 of the
Pension Regulations read as under:
43. Withholding or withdrawal of pension:
The Competent Authority may, by order in writing, withhold or withdraw a pension or a part thereof, whether permanently or for a specified period, if the pensioner is convicted of a serious crime or criminal breach of trust or forgery or acting fraudulently or is found guilty of grave misconduct.
Provided that where a part of pension is withheld or withdrawn the amount of such pension shall not be reduced below the minimum pension per mensem payable under these Regulations."
44. Conviction by Court: -
Where a pensioner is convicted of a serious crime by a Court of Law, action shall be taken in the light of the judgement of the court relating to such conviction.
45. Pensioner guilty of grave misconduct: -
In a case not falling under Regulation 44 if the Competent Authority considers that the pensioner is prima facie guilty of grave misconduct, it shall, before passing an order, follow the procedure specified in Canara Bank Office Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulation, 1976 or in Settlement as the case may be.
Regulations. These provisions cannot be read to hold that the power under Regulation 43 could be invoked only when the pensioner is convicted of a serious crime or criminal breach of trust or fraud or forgery, and if these provisions are read accordingly, the provisions of Regulations 44 and 45, and the significance thereof, would be negated.
12. The provisions of Regulation 48 of the
Pension Regulations read as under
48. Recovery of Pecuniary loss caused to the Bank- (1) The Competent Authority may withhold or withdraw a pension or a part thereof, whether permanently or for a specified period and order recovery from pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Bank if in any departmental or judicial proceedings the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence or criminal breach of trust or forgery or acts done fraudulently during the period of his service:
Provided that the Board shall be consulted before any final orders are passed:
13. The Madras High Court in the decision
in P. Mathivanan Inbaraj v. Canara Bank1 , while considering these very regulations and the interplay, has opined the Regulations 45 [and therefore Regulations 43 and 44] and Regulation 48 do not lean on each other and has concluded thus:
1 2023 SCC OnLine Mad 594
competent authority can pass orders under Regulation 43 without resorting for any consultation with the Board. In the aforesaid scenario, by no means could Regulation 43 and 48 be read in conjunction and both the Regulations stand in isolation and are to be invoked in the scenarios, which the competent authority decides, subject to what the competent authority intends to do on the outcome of the proceedings, if any, initiated against the pensioner."
this conclusion. This Court must opine that the true import of these Pension Regulations, when the concerned is found guilty of misconduct after the proceedings under the Canara Bank Officer Employees' [Discipline and Appeals] Regulation, 1976, is that the Competent Authority can invoke the jurisdiction under Regulation 43 to withdraw or withhold pension, and it need not be under Regulation 48.
instituted as is contemplated under Regulation 45 of the Pension Regulation resulting in the impugned orders by the Disciplinary and the Appellate Authorities. Indeed, the petitioner faced only investigation and trial as of the date of the impugned orders and he is convicted subsequently for the offences under the provisions of the PC Act and Section 120-B of the IPC but that cannot be a reason to hold that the power under Regulation 48 of the Pension Regulations had to be invoked or that the Board’ had to be consulted for denying pension to the petitioner.
In the light of the afore, the question for consideration is answered against the petitioner and the petition is rejected.
Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE
SA ct:sr
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Disciplinary Authority could deny pension under Regulations 43 and 45 without consulting the Board as contemplated under Regulation 48.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
P. Mathivanan Inbaraj v. Canara BankRelied on¶13
2023 SCC OnLine Mad 594 · Who else cites this
7 provisions across 4 enactments
Subraya R Hegde
Canara Bank
The Executive Director, Canara Bank Head Office
The Asst. General Manager, Canara Bank HRM Section, Pune Circle Office
B M Shyam Prasad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
