Page No.# 1/15 GAHC010186542014 2019:GAU-AS:20865 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/4500/2014 SUBODH CHANDRA SAHA S/O- LT. SATISH CHANDRA SAHA, R/O- M.D. ROAD, HAIBORGAON, DIST.- NAGAON, ASSAM. VERSUS PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK and 2 ORS REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN and MANAGING DIRECTOR, 7 BHIKAJI CAMA PLACE, NEW DLEHI- 110607. 2:GENERAL MANAGER – PAD PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK H.O.-7 BHIKAJI CAMA PLACE NEW DELHI- 110 607. 3:CIRCLE HEAD CIRCLE OFFICE - DISCIPLINARY ACTION CELL NORTH EAST CIRCLE NILGIRI MANSION G.S. ROAD BHANGAGARH GUWAHATI Advocate for the Petitioner : MS.B DAS, MR. J ABBAS,MR S T ADNAN,MR S A BARBHUYAN,MR.A DASGUPTA,MR. A KUNDU,MR.S CHAKRABARTY,MR.B DAS Advocate for the Respondent : , ,,MR.A GANGULY, :::BEFORE::: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR Date of hearing : 16.07.2025 Date of Judgment : 16.07.2025 Judgment & Order(Oral) Heard Mr. M. R. Sarbadhikari, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard by Mr. A. Ganguly, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondent Bank. Page No.# 2/15 2. The petitioner, herein, by way of instituting the present proceeding, has presented a challenge to an order, dated 05-09-2013, by which a penalty of removal from service came to be imposed upon the petitioner. The petitioner had also assailed the order passed by the appellate authority on 16-05-2014, rejecting the appeal preferred by him. The petitioner, in this writ petition, has also prayed for a direction upon the respondent authorities to provide to him all his service and retirement benefits by maintaining continuity in service. 3. The instant writ petition was taken-up for final consideration by a co- ordinate Bench of this Court and vide judgment & order, dated 30-05-2019, the petition came to be dismissed by upholding the penalty of removal from service imposed upon the petitioner by the respondent authorities. 4. Being aggrieved, the petitioner had instituted a writ appeal being WA No. 313/2019. The Division Bench of this Court, on considering the issues arising in the matter, was pleased vide order, dated 21-04-2021, to remand back the matter to the writ Court requiring the writ Court to examine the issue as to whether the appellant/petitioner would be entitled to superannuation benefits such as pension, leave encashment and gratuity, after he was so imposed with the penalty of removal from service. The Division Bench of this Court while remanding back the matter to the writ Court, had not interfered with the judgment & order, dated 30-05-2019, passed in the present writ petition. On remand by the Division Bench, the matter was listed before this Court for consideration of the issues so framed by the Division Bench in its order, dated 21-04-2021. 5. The learned counsels appearing for the parties have restricted their submissions only to the issue as culled-out by the Division Bench in its order, Page No.# 3/15 dated 21-04-2021. 6. Mr. Sarbadhikari, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the penalty of removal so imposed upon the petitioner vide the order, dated 05-09-2013, had attained its finality and the only issue left would be as to whether the petitioner, herein, would be entitled to receive pension and pensionary benefits even after imposition of the penalty of removal from service. 7. Mr. Sarbadhikari, learned counsel, has further submitted that although the provisions of Regulation 22 of the Punjab National Bank(Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995, mandates that on resignation, or, dismissal, or, removal, or, termination of an employer from the service of the Bank, the same shall entail forfeiture of his entire past service and consequently shall not qualify for pensionary benefits; has submitted that the said provision has to be construed in the light of the provisions of Regulations 42 and 43 of the said Regulations of 1995. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the provisions of Regulation 22, more particularly, pertaining to forfeiture of past service upon imposition of the penalty of removal from service has been superseded by the bi-partite settlement, dated 10-04-2002, entered into between the Indian Banks Association and their Workmen, represented by the National Association of Bank Workers. 8. Mr. Sarbadhikari, learned counsel, has submitted that clause 6(b) of the bi-partite settlement, mandates that an employee found guilty of gross misconduct may be removed from service with superannuation benefits i.e. pension and/or provident fund and gratuity, as would be due otherwise under the Rules, or, Regulations, prevailing at the relevant time and without Page No.# 4/15 disqualification from future employment. It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the petitioner, herein, having fulfilled all the eligibility conditions for being authorized, pension and pensionary benefits, in terms of the bi-partite settlement, involved, notwithstanding the fact that he was imposed with a penalty of “Removal from Service”; he would be entitled to be authorized his due pension and pensionary benefits. 9. It is submitted by Mr. Sarbadhikari, learned counsel, that in view of the provisions coming into effect in pursuance to the said bi-partite settlement, dated 10-04-2002; the respondent Bank could not have taken recourse to the provisions of Regulation 22 of the said Regulations of 1995. 10. In support of his submissions, Mr. Sarbadhikari, learned counsel for the petitioner, has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bank of Baroda v. S. K. Kool(dead) through LRs., reported in (2014) 2 SCC 715, and has contended that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its said decision, had considered the interplay between the provisions of the Regulation 22 and that of clause 6(b) of the bi-partite settlement, dated 10- 04-2002. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, has, on a consideration of the matter held that the provisions of clause 6(b) of the bi-partite settlement; the employee involved, therein, was entitled to the superannuation benefits inspite of the fact that he was imposed with the penalty of removal from service. Mr. Sarbadhikari, learned counsel for the petitioner, has also relied upon the subsequent decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as that of the various High Courts following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S. K. Kool(supra). 11. Mr. Sarbadhikari, learned counsel, by taking this Court through the order, Page No.# 5/15 dated 02-02-2016, filed in Misc. Case No. 725/2015 in WP(c) No. 4500/2014, has contended that this Court while considering the grievance of the petitioner with regard to non-release to him, his gratuity amount; had drawn a conclusion that in the departmental proceeding held against the petitioner, loss occasioning to the Bank on account of the misconduct alleged against the petitioner, herein, was not specified. Accordingly, the learned counsel has submitted that this Court had proceeded to direct release of 50% of the gratuity amount due to the petitioner. The petitioner has also submitted that subsequently, the respondent Bank, had, in pursuance to the directions passed by this Court in the present proceeding, released the full amount of gratuity to him. It has been submitted by the learned counsel that the release of the gratuity amount to the petitioner would go to establish that the Bank had not suffered any financial loss on account of the misconduct proved against the petitioner in the matter and accordingly, there would arise no bar in releasing to the petitioner, his pension and other pensionary benefits. 12. Mr. Sarbadhikari, learned counsel, has further submitted that the bi- partite settlement holding the case and the same having the effect of superseding the provisions of Regulation 22 of the said Regulations of 1995; the petitioner, herein, on being imposed with the penalty of removal from service; could not have been denied his pension and pensionary benefits by the authorities of the Bank. Accordingly, the learned counsel has pleaded to direct the Bank authorities to release to the petitioner, his due pension and other pensionary benefits. 13. On the one hand, Mr. Ganguly, learned counsel for the respondent Bank, has submitted that in pursuance of the directions passed by this Court in the present proceeding, the Bank authorities have released to the petitioner his Page No.# 6/15 due gratuity amount. However, the said release of the gratuity amount would not tantamount to an admission to the effect that the Petitioner would also be entitled to all other pension and pensionary benefits. 14. Mr. Ganguly, learned counsel, has submitted that the learned counsel for the petitioner has based his submission on the bi-partite settlement, dated 10- 04-2002, arrived at between the Indian Banks Association and their Workmen as well as on the decision of the Honorable Supreme Court in the case of S. K. Kool(supra). 15. Mr. Ganguly, learned counsel, at the very outset, has submitted that the petitioner, herein, at the time of initiation of departmental proceedings against him, was working in the Officer cadre and was not a workman. The learned counsel has further submitted that the bi-partite settlement, dated 10-04- 2002, having arrived at between the Management of the Banks involved with their workmen under the provisions of Section 2(p) and Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, read with Rule 58 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957; the said settlement would not stand attracted in the case of the petitioner, herein. Mr. Ganguly, learned counsel, has further submitted that disciplinary proceedings were instituted in the matter against the petitioner not under the provisions of the said bi-partite settlement, but, were so instituted against the petitioner, herein, invoking the power under the provisions of Section 6 of the Punjab National Bank Officer Employees’ (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1977. It has been further submitted by the learned counsel that the petitioner, herein, not being a workman, he would be outside the purview of the bi-partite settlement and in pursuance of the departmental proceedings instituted, a penalty of removal from service having been imposed upon him, the same having entailed forfeiture of past services Page No.# 7/15 rendered by the petitioner in terms of the provisions of Regulation 22 of the Regulations of 1995; the petitioner, herein, would not be entitled to any pension and pensionary benefits. 16. Mr. Ganguly, learned counsel, has further submitted that provisions of Regulation 22 of the said Regulations of 1995, clearly mandates that imposition of penalty of removal from service, amounts to forfeiture of the entire past service of the employee concerned and consequently, his such past service shall not qualify for pensionary benefits. Mr. Ganguly, learned counsel, has also submitted that this Court having upheld the order of the penalty of removal from service imposed upon the petitioner, in view of the express provisions of Regulation 22 of the said Regulations of 1995, the petitioner, herein, would not be entitled to any pension and pensionary benefits, inasmuch as, the imposition of the penalty of removal from service, has the effect of forfeiting the entire past service rendered by the petitioner, herein. 17. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the parties and also duly perused the materials made available on record. 18. At the outset, the directions passed by the Division Bench of this Court in WA No. 313/2019, would be required to be noticed. Accordingly, the operative portion, thereof, is extracted hereinbelow: “3. Learned counsel for the writ appellant/petitioner has submitted that he is not challenging the legality of the appellant’s removal from service. His argument, now, is limited to the extent as to whether the appellant is entitled to superannuation benefits such as pension, leave encashment and gratuity. In support of his new contention, he relies upon the bipartite settlement of 2002 as well as the pension regulations. Page No.# 8/15 4. All the same, we are of the considered view that since this aspect, i.e. whether under the circumstances, the writ appellant/petitioner is entitled to superannuation benefits such as pension, leave encashment and gratuity, has not been argued before the learned Single Judge, let this case be remanded back to the learned Single Judge on this limited issue. The writ appellant/petitioner would, therefore, be at liberty to raise this issue before the learned Single Judge. We, therefore, remand back the matter to the learned Single Judge for deciding the issue which we have already referred above.” 19. The directions passed by the Division Bench of this Court vide order, dated 21-04-2021, would go to reveal that the matter was remanded back to the writ Court basing on the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, herein, that he would not be challenging the legality of the petitioner's removal from service and his argument would be limited to the extent as to whether the petitioner is entitled to superannuation benefits such as pension, leave encashment and gratuity and had, in this connection, relied upon the provisions of the bi-partite settlement of 2002. Accordingly, the Division Bench of this Court had required the writ Court to consider the issues on the matter of being remanded back. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner inspite of being imposed with the penalty of removal from service, would be entitled to be authorized to his pension and pensionary benefits in terms of the provisions of clause 6(b) of the bi-partite settlement of 2002. 20. Per contra, it is the contention of the respondent Bank that the petitioner being an Officer would be outside the purview of the said bi-partite settlement of 2002 and his case, in this connection, would be governed by the provisions of Regulation 22 of the Regulations of 1995. 21. Sub-regulation(1) of Regulation 22 of the Regulations of 1995, being relevant, the same is extracted hereinbelow: Page No.# 9/15 “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 pensionary benefits;” 22. A perusal of the said provisions of sub-regulation(1) of Regulation 22, would go to reveal that on resignation, or, dismissal, or, removal, or, termination of an employee from the service of the Bank; the same shall entail forfeiture of his entire past service and further such period of service shall not qualify for pensionary benefits. 23. Applying the provisions of Regulation 22 to the facts of the present case; the petitioner, herein, having been imposed with the penalty of removal from service, the same would entail forfeiture of his entire past service and the same now not being permissible to be treated as qualifying service for the purpose of pension and pensionary benefits, he would not be entitled to any pension or pensionary benefits upon being imposed with the penalty of removal from service. 24. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the provisions of regulation 22 of the Regulations of 1995, stood superseded by the bi-partite settlement, dated 10-04-2002; would require an examination by this Court. 25. The said bi-partite settlement was so arrived at between the Management of 52 ‘A’ Class Banks as represented by the Indian Banks Association and their Workmen and represented by the All India Bank Employees Association, National Confederation of Bank Employees and the Indian Bank Employees Federation. The said bi-partite settlement was so Page No.# 10/15 arrived at under section 2(p) and Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, read with Rule 58 of the Industrial Disputes(Central) Rules, 1957. The provisions under which the bi-partite settlement was so arrived at, would go to reveal that the same was so entered into by the parties to the said settlement under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and accordingly, the same would be concerning the workmen involved. 26. Admittedly, the petitioner, herein, is an Officer of the respondent Bank and accordingly, he would not be covered by the provisions of the settlement arrived in pursuance of the said bi-partite settlement of 2002. It is to be noted that in respect of the bi-partite settlement, a procedure for initiation of the disciplinary proceeding and also for imposition of penalty, thereof, has been laid out. In the event of commission of any misconduct by a workman covered by the provisions of the said bi-partite settlement of 2002, a disciplinary proceeding is initiated against him under the terms of the said bi-partite settlement and a penalty is also so imposed upon him under the provisions, thereof. 27. In the case on hand, the disciplinary proceeding instituted against the petitioner, herein, was not so instituted by applying the provisions of the bi- partite settlement, rather, the same was so initiated by invoking the provisions under Regulation 6 of the Punjab National Bank Officer Employees’(Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1977. Accordingly, the petitioner, herein, who was an Officer of the respondent Bank; his service conditions was, admittedly, not governed by the said bi-partite settlement. 28. Having drawn the above conclusions, this Court would now consider the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of S. K. Kool Page No.# 11/15 (supra) relied upon by the petitioner, herein. 29. A perusal of the said decision, would go to reveal that same was in respect of a clerk with the Bank concerned, who, admittedly, was a workman and was imposed with the penalty of removal from service. The workman involved in the case of S. K. Kool(supra) being covered by the bi-partite settlement of 2002; the Hon’ble Supreme Court proceeded to hold that in view of the provisions of Clause 6(b) of the bi-partite settlement of 2002, such of the employees who are otherwise entitled to superannuation benefits under the Regulations if visited with the penalty of removal from service with superannuation benefits; shall be entitled for those benefits and such of the employees though visited with the same penalty but are not eligible for superannuation benefits under the Regulation, shall not be entitled to that. 30. The said directions passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S. K. Kool(supra), can be construed to be applicable only in respect of a workman and not in respect of an Officer of the Bank, who is not covered by the provisions of the said bi-partite settlement. 31. In view of the above discussions, this Court is of the considered view that the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of S. K. Kool(supra), would not stand attracted to the issue arising in the present writ petition. Likewise, the other decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner which follows the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S. K. Kool (supra); would also have not any application to the facts involved in the present writ petition. Page No.# 12/15 32. In view of the above conclusions drawn by this Court, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner, herein, on being imposed with the penalty of removal from service, vide the order, dated 05-09-2013, it is the provisions of Regulation 22 that would now hold the field and in terms, thereof, the imposition of penalty having the effect of forfeiture of the past services rendered by the employee concerned; the petitioner, herein, would not be entitled to any pension, and/or, pensionary benefits. However, the gratuity amount already paid to the petitioner, in pursuance of the directions passed by this Court in the present proceeding, would not mandate a recovery. 33. The petitioner, herein, in the present proceeding, having also made a prayer for being authorized, the leave encashment; this Court clarifies that the petitioner, on being imposed with the penalty of removal from service, his past service having been forfeited; he would not be entitled to be authorized, the leave encashment benefits. 34. At this stage, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the provisions of regulation 22 of the Regulations of 1995, has to be construed in the light of the provisions of regulations 42 and 43, thereof, is required to be examined. 35. On a close examination of the provisions of regulation 42, it is seen that the same mandates that an employee who has been authorized pension; the continuation of payment of such pension, would be dependent on his good conduct, in future. The situation envisaged in regulation 42, would have no application to the facts involved in the present writ petition. Page No.# 13/15 36. Likewise, a perusal of the provisions of regulation 43, would go to reveal that the same envisages a situation wherein, the competent authority withholds, or, withdraws a pension or a part thereof, on the conviction of the pensioner of a serious crime, or, criminal breach of trust or forgery or acting fraudulently or when found guilty of grave misconduct. The provisions of regulation 43 envisages the withdrawal, or, withholding of a pension and not a situation wherein, the employee concerned is imposed with the penalty of dismissal, or, removal, or, termination from service. Accordingly, the provisions of regulation 43, would also not have any application in a situation covered by the provisions of regulation 22 of the Regulations of 1995. 37. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that neither, the provisions of regulation 42, nor, the provisions of regulation 43, would advance the case of the petitioner, herein, whose case is covered by the provisions of regulation 22 of the said Regulations of 1995. 38. Having drawn the above conclusions, this Court would now proceed to notice the regulation 31 of the Regulations of 1995. 39. The provisions of regulation 31 of the Regulations of 1995, mandates authorization of a “Compassionate Allowance” to an employee who is dismissed, or, removed, or, terminated from service and whose pension stands forfeited. 40. The provisions of regulation 31 of the Regulatioins of 1995, being relevant, is extracted hereinbelow: Page No.# 14/15 “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 (i) shall not be less than the amount of minimum pension payable under regulation 36 of these regulations.” 41. A perusal of the provisions of regulation 31 of the Regulations of 1995, would go to reveal that an employee who is dismissed, or, removed, or, terminated from service and whose pension stands forfeited; can be authorized by an authority higher than the authority competent to dismiss, remove, or, terminate him from service, a “Compassionate Allowance”, in the event, the case is deserving of a special consideration. It further mandates that the “Compassionate Allowance” so sanctioned; shall not be less than the amount of minimum pension payable under 36 of the Regulations of 1995. 42. In view of the provisions of regulation 31 of the Regulations of 1995 and the petitioner, herein, having already been held by this Court to be not entitled to any pension and pensionary benefits; this Court directs the petitioner to submit an application before the competent authority of the respondent Bank and therein, stake a claim for being authorized “Compassionate Allowance” under the provisions of regulation 31 of the Regulations of 1995. 43. In the event of filing of any such application by the petitioner, herein; the competent authority of the Bank, shall consider the same on its merits and by following the provisions existing in this connection in regulation 31 of the Page No.# 15/15 Regulations of 1995; proceed to decide as to whether he would be entitled to be authorized a compassionate allowance. 44. In the event, it is found that the petitioner is entitled to be authorized a compassionate allowance, the competent authority of the Bank shall authorize to the petitioner, herein, a compassionate allowance with effect from the date, he was imposed a penalty of removal from service. 45. The arrears so working-out, in this connection, be released to the petitioner, herein, within a period of 2(two) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order along with the representation now required to be submitted by the petitioner. 46. With the above directions, this writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant