A dismissed Canara Bank officer sought reinstatement with benefits; counsel instead pressed for consideration under Rule 31 for a compassionate allowance. The court disposed of the petition directing the higher authority to consider his representation after personal hearing.
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.
NC: 2024:KHC:21207 WP No. 23747 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024 BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 23747 OF 2012 (S-DIS)
BETWEEN:
N RAMACHANDRA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS S/O NARASIMHAIAH, EARLIER WORKING AS OFFICER IN JUNIOR MANAGEMENT GRADE SCLAE-I AT CANRA BANK, LB & PSM SECTION, CRICEL OFFICE, 86, M G ROAD BANGALORE-560001, SINCE ILLEGALLY DISMISSED FROM SERVICE AND RESIDING AT NO.23, 6TH CROSS, 13TH MAIN 9TH BLOCK, II STAGE, NAGARABHAVI BANGALORE-560072.
…PETITIONER
Digitally signed by NARASIMHA MURTHY VANAMALA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
(BY SRI. NAGABUSHAN RAO.,ADVOCATE FOR SRI. NAGENDRA NAIK R, ADVOCATE)
AND:
CANARA BANK A BODY CONSTITUTED UNDER THE BANKING COMPANIES (ACQUISITION & TRANSFER OF UNDERTAKDINGS), ACT 1970, REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR HEAD OFFICE NO.112, J C ROAD BANGALORE-560002.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. T R K PRASAD .,ADVOCATE)
NC: 2024:KHC:21207 WP No. 23747 of 2012
THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE LEADING TO THE ORDERS DATED 3.02.2012 AND 28.05.2012; QUASH ORDER 3.02.2012 PASSED BY THE BANK COMMUNICATED BY COMMUNICATION DATED 3.02.2012 (UNDER ANNEXURE V TO THE WRIT PETITION) AND ORDER DATED 28TH MAY 2012 PASSED BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY (UNDER ANNEXURE X TO THE WRIT PETITION) AND GRANT ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS INCLUDING REINSTATEMENT OF THE PETITIONER INTO THE SERVICE OF THE BANK WITH CONTINUITY OF SERVICE AND PAYMENT OF ARREARS OF SALARY AND ALLOWANCES.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner, who was working with the respondent's Shivaganga Branch as an Officer in Junior Management Grade Scale - 1 from 21.06.1994 till 08.11.1996, has suffered punishment of dismissal
[which would be disqualification for future employment] after conclusion of the inquiry proceedings with the petitioner being served with article of charges imputing that [i] he has sanctioned loan discriminately without following due process;
[ii] he was officiating in place of permanent Manager;
NC: 2024:KHC:21207 WP No. 23747 of 2012
and [iii] he has had financial transactions with the customers and has created records to fudge the same. The Appellate Authority has confirmed the Disciplinary Authority’s order.
1 [2010] 13 Supreme Court Cases 427
NC: 2024:KHC:21207 WP No. 23747 of 2012
counsel for the petitioner, submits that he would not press the petition for a decision on merits of the dismissal order because the petitioner is more than 70 years old as of today, and he would request this Court to consider his case for appropriate orders under Rule 31 of Canara Bank [Employees’] Pension Regulations 1995 [for short, ' the 1995 Regulations' ].
NC: 2024:KHC:21207 WP No. 23747 of 2012
upon Rule 31 of the 1995 Regulations which reads as under:
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
[2] The Compassionate Allowances sanctioned under the proviso to subregulation [1] shall not be less than the amount of minimum pension payable under regulation 36 of these regulations. `
However, Sri T.R.K. Prasad, the learned counsel for
the respondent, is heard in the light of this submission, and he submits that his tentative
NC: 2024:KHC:21207 WP No. 23747 of 2012
instruction is that the petitioner’s whereabouts may not be known and even if there is to be any direction to consider the petitioner’s case for compassionate allowance in terms of Rule 31 of the Regulations, the petitioner must appear before the higher authority.
NC: 2024:KHC:21207 WP No. 23747 of 2012
examined by the competent authority, after the petitioner is heard in person.
the petitioner’s request, if made, in the backdrop of the allegations against him, his defences and the competent authority’s conclusions. Further, this Court must observe that if the petitioner does not personally appear before the authority when the notice is issued in this regard, that should be a decisive factor. Therefore, this Court is of the considered of the view that the petitioner must be disposed of with directions to the competent authority to consider the petitioner’s case for compassionate allowance permitting the petitioner to file a representation with the competent authority as is contemplated under Rule 31 of the 1995 Regulations for such allowance. Hence, the following:
NC: 2024:KHC:21207 WP No. 23747 of 2012
ORDER
[a] The petition stands disposed of reserving
liberty to the petitioner to file with the higher authority, as is contemplated under Regulation 31 of the 1996 Regulations, a certified copy of this order along with the representation for sanction of compassionate allowances. The petitioner will be at liberty to file such representation within four [4] weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
[b] The Higher authority to whom the petitioner shall make a representation as aforesaid shall issue notice for personal appearance to the petitioner at the address mentioned in his representation and shall take an appropriate decision in the light of this Court’s observation and
communicate the decision to the petitioner.
[c] This exercise shall be completed within a period of six [6] months from the date of receipt of representation from the petitioner.
Sd/JUDGE
SA ct:sr
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a dismissed employee may seek a compassionate allowance under Rule 31 of the Canara Bank (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995 despite forfeiture of pension.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Oryx Fisheries Private Limited v. Union of India and OthersRelied on
[2010] 13 Supreme Court Cases 427
2 provisions across 2 enactments
N Ramachandra
Canara Bank
B M Shyam Prasad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
