TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 2061X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inquent is at best guilty of a misconduct but that is no ground to deny access to pension (wherever applicable) or subsistence allowance (wherever applicable). As far as Shukla is concerned he was denied his pension as well as subsistence allowance which prevented him from effectively participating in the disciplinary inquiry. On this ground as well, the proceedings against Shukla are vitiated. There are no hesitation in dismissing the appeal filed by the Bank also on the ground that the punishment of dismissal could not have been imposed on Shukla after his superannuation. Appeal dismissed. - Civil Appeal No. 2693 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 15-2-2018 - Madan B. Lokur And Deepak Gupta, JJ. For the Appearing Parties : P.H. Parek ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nk Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulations, 1976 as amended. (II) Shri Shukla, by making available the official correspondence (exchanged between regional office, Raipur and his branch) to his son which he later quoted in his proposal for compromise of Transport Loan availed by him, has not only acted against the interest of the Bank but also has deliberately divulged information of a confidential nature to a person-his son, not entitled to it, which is violative of Regulation 4 of UCO Bank Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulations, 1976 as amended. (III) By availing loans and that also frequently, far in excess of the permissible amount against NSCs and FDRs without paying interest at the applicable rates, Shri R.S. Shukl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rge 1 is concerned, he passed an order on 30th June, 1999 dismissing Shukla from service which would ordinarily be a disqualification for future employment. 6. A departmental appeal was filed by Shukla. During the pendency of the departmental appeal, Shukla filed a writ petition in the Madhya Pradesh High Court. Later, the departmental appeal filed by Shukla was dismissed. The writ petition was transferred to the Chhattisgarh High Court and by a judgment and order dated 21st December, 2006 the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and quashed the order dated 30th June, 1999 passed by the Disciplinary Authority. An appeal filed by the Bank was dismissed by the impugned judgment and order dated 7th May, 2010 by the Division Benc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of this conclusion, the learned Single Judge held that even if Charge 1 is proved, it would not amount to a misconduct within the purview of the Conduct Regulations applicable to bank employees. It was further held that assuming misconduct was proved, appropriate action could be taken under the UCO Bank (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995 in accordance with law and if permissible. 11. The Division Bench of the High Court found no error in the view taken by the learned Single Judge and accordingly dismissed the appeal filed by the Bank. The Division Bench held that the action by Shukla in issuing a cheque for ₹ 3 lakhs when he had only about ₹ 1,000/- in his account did not amount to misconduct but was an action personal t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... back to learn from learned Counsel for Shukla that after his superannuation on 31st January, 1999 Shukla was paid nothing during the pendency of the disciplinary inquiry. He was not paid his salary because he had superannuated. For some reason he was not paid his pension, perhaps because a departmental inquiry was pending against him. He was also not paid any subsistence allowance during the period that the disciplinary inquiry was pending and even thereafter till 30th June, 1999. In other words, Shukla was made to face a financial crunch and presumably, he did not have a fair opportunity of defending himself. 15. An employee is entitled to subsistence allowance during an inquiry pending against him or her but if that employee is starv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 12.10.2004 passed by the disciplinary authority dismissing the Respondent from service, who had superannuated on 31.12.1993 was ex facie illegal and without jurisdiction and the High Court did not commit any error by setting aside the same. 17. We may also make reference to another decision of this Court in UCO Bank and Anr. v. Rajinder Lal Capoor (2007) 6 SCC 694. This decision also related to the very same Regulations that we are concerned with. 18. In dealing with these Regulations, it was observed by the Court in paragraph 22 of the Report as follows: The Respondent, therefore, having been allowed to superannuate, only a proceeding, inter alia, for withholding of his pension under the Pension Regulations could have been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
