DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016
Case No.872/2009
INDERJIT SINGH SURI
S/o Sh. F.C Suri,
R/o D-1C/36B, Janakpuri,
New Delhi-110058
….Complainant
Versus
THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER,
Dena Bank, Regional Office, 4th Floor, Bank of Baroda Building,
Parliament Street, New Delhi-110001
As Dena Bank has merged with Bank of Baroda therefore new address of OP-1 is
Bank of Baroda 16,
Parliament Street, New Delhi-110001
THE GENERAL MANAGER (PERSONNEL),
Dena Bank, Dena Corporate Office,
C-10, G-Block, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra East,
Mumbai-400051
….Opposite Parties
Date of Institution : 10.12.2009
Date of Order : 19.07.2022
Coram:
Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member
ORDER
Member: Ms. Kiran Kaushal
- Brief facts of the case as pleaded by the Complainant are:
The Complainant Sh. Inderjit Singh Suri joined Dena Bank on 15.11.1971 and was promoted to the Officer Cadre of the Bank in 1981. Complainant claims to have opted for pension under EPF Scheme.
2. The Complainant was suspended on 19.02.2000 for unauthorized purchase of cheques while he was working at Mayapuri Branch of the Bank alongwith Sh. P.K Sahi, Branch Manager. It is stated that the Bank Manager was retained in the Bank’s service, whereas the Complainant was dismissed from service and was made scapegoat to save the high ups of the bank.
3. It is next stated that the Complainant made repeated requests to OP Bank to release his pension and gratuity for the services rendered . The Bank in reply to the legal notice of the Complainant, informed that the pension of the Complainant could not be released as the same has been forfeited for the loss caused by him. It is stated that OP Bank is trying to justify their stand of illegal/biased/discriminatory/pre-determined decision that the Complainant has caused loss to the bank, which is totally incorrect and baseless. Moreover, OP served no notice to the Complainant in respect of forfeiture of pension, which is in violation of the Provisions of Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.
4. Thus aggrieved, complainant prays for an order to release the pension of the complainant by OP Bank with any other order, which is deemed fit and proper.
5. OP resisted the complaint stating interalia raising preliminary objection that the instant complaint is not maintainable for not being within the ambit of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is also submitted that the complaint is time barred as the Complainant was dismissed from the Bank’s service vide Memorandum dated 24.06.2004 and the complaint has been filed on 10.12.2009. It is further stated that as the services of the Complainant were terminated by the OP Bank after conducting Departmental Enquiry into the Memorandum/Charge sheet dated 08.04.2003, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
6. It is next stated that the Disciplinary Authority in his order clearly recorded that the Complainant had acted in a manner detrimental to the interest of the Bank, his conduct was that of unbecoming an officer. The Complainant had misused his official position and resultantly bank has suffered huge financial loss. The Disciplinary Authority further observed that the charge of lack of integrity and honesty stands proved and the allegation of loss to the tune of Rs.12,20,375/- by unauthorisedly allowing temporary overdraft, unauthorized cheque purchase facilities by debiting the `Imprest company’ clearing accounts, stands proved. Subsequently, Complainant’s pension was forfeited as per Regulation 22 of Dena Bank (Employees’) Pension Regulations – 1995.
7. It is also stated that a CBI case has been filed against the Complainant, which is pending before the Special Judge CBI, Tis Hazari, Delhi. It is further stated that the Complainant has also filed a writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court in which he had claimed reinstatement in bank’s service with all the service benefits. Hence, the matter is already sub-judice before the Hon’ble High Court at New Delhi.
8. In the facts and circumstance stated above it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed with heavy cost.
9. Rejoinder is filed on behalf of the Complainant. Evidence by way of affidavit and written arguments are filed on behalf of parties. Submissions made by the counsel for the Complainant are heard. Material placed on record is perused.
10. It is seen from the material placed before us that subsequent to filing the present complaint, Complainant had instituted another Complaint Case no. 25/2010 instituted on 14.01.2010. Complainant by seeking directions for OP bank to pay his provident funds rules flouted Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC. However, this Commission vide order dated 07.03.2013 allowed the said subsequently filed complaint and directed the OP Bank to release his EPF due alongwith interest. It is also noticed that the Complainant has already received statutory dues of gratuity decided in his favour by the Hon’ble Controlling Authority and Appellate Authority (Central) under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.
11. OP’s preliminary objection that Complainant is not a Consumer as defined under Consumer Protection Act and the present complaint is not a consumer dispute is no more res integra, as while admitting the complaint the question involved was taken into consideration. This forum in the year 2009 admitted the complaint after taking into account the judgment titled Kerala State Cooperative Employees’ Pension Board Vs Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum IVIVIV(2004) CPJ 627.
12. The next issue raised by OP is that the complaint is time barred as the Complainant was dismissed from OP Bank vide Memorandum dated 08.04.2003. It is seen from the records that though the Complainant was terminated in the year 2003, the issue of his pension subsists; moreover, since the complaint has remained pending adjudication for almost 13 years the delay is condoned. Another objection raised by OP is that the complaint is liable to be dismissed as Complainant is involved in certain financial irregularities and the CBI has already filed case against him, which is pending before the Special Judge, CBI, Tis Hazari, Delhi. It is seen from the records that vide judgment dated 06.09.2014 Complainant is acquitted of all the charges levelled against him. Otherwise also pendency of criminal case does not bar a consumer from alleging deficiency in service.
13. Next objection raised by OP is that as a Writ petition is pending before Hon’ble High Court in which the Complainant has claimed reinstatement in OP Bank with all service benefits, complaint is liable to be dismissed. As per the Complainant, the said writ petition has been admitted. In the absence of any stay order being granted or filed by the parties, we think it appropriate to adjudicate the instant case.
14. The issue of contention between the parties is whether the complainant is entitled to pension from OP Bank after having been terminated by the Bank vide order dated 08.04.2003. OP Bank denying the pensinoary benefit has relied on Regulation 22 of the Dena Bank (Employees’) Pension Regulations, 1995 annexed as Annexure –B with the written statement. For ready reference Regulation 22 is reproduced as under:-
22. Forfeiture of service
(i) 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;
(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 employees 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.
15. As is apparent from the above clause any employee on termination from Service shall not qualify for pensionary benefit except in certain situations. It is not the case of the Complainant that after acquittal by the Special CBI Court he was reinstated in service. Therefore, Complainant cannot draw any benefit from the exceptions provided under Regulation 22 i.e Forfeiture of service.
16. Admittedly, Complainant was a member of Dena Bank Employees’ Pension Scheme and as per the Pension Regulations, 1995 Employees terminated from service do not quality for pensionary benefits. Thus, we are of the opinion that OP has acted as per the Rules and Regulations of the above stated EPF Scheme and no deficiency can be attributed to OP.
17. In view of the discussion above we dismiss the complainant with no order as to costs.
File be consigned to the record room after giving a copy of the order to the parties as per rules. Order be uploaded on the website.
