DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016
Case No.817/2009
RAVINDER MALIK
90/42-B,1st Floor,
Malviya Nagar, New Delhi-110017
….Complainant
Versus
THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER,
Dena Bank, 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, Banadara (East),
Mumbai-400051
….Opposite Parties
Date of Institution : 12.11.2009
Date of Order : 01.07.2022
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. Ravinder Malik joined Dena Bank in 1971 and was promoted to officer cadre of the Bank in 1981. Complainant claims to have opted for pension under EPF Scheme when it was introduced in the bank in 1995.
2. The Complainant was suspended on 19.09.1997 while working in Kirti Nagar Branch of the Bank. The Bank had alleged that certain irregularities were committed by the Complainant while he was working in the Mayapuri Branch of the Bank during the period from 1994 to 1997. It is stated that the Deputy General Manager, Dena Bank (OP-1) and The General Manager (Personnel), Dena Bank (OP-2) did not release the pension of the complainant after his dismissal from service on 21.03.2002. It is stated that bank has dismissed the Complainant in most biased manner. It is stated that the Complainant was working as an Accountant in the Mayapuri Branch of OP, under a senior officer, Sh. B.D Sharma, the then Branch Manager. Complainant had no independent power at all, he followed the instructions of his senior and was acting on his behalf. Therefore, the Complainant could not be held guilty/responsible for any loss to the Bank.
3. It is further stated that OP has not released his pension on vague and frivolous ground of having caused heavy loss to the Bank. OP has not given any notice to forfeit the pension of the Complainant for more than six years despite repeatedly making enquiries from the local regional office. It is stated that OP has totally ignored all the procedures provided under the provisions in the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1952 to forfeit the hard-earned pension of the Complainant.
4. It is next stated that Complainant has filed Civil Writ Petition No. 8804/2009 in the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi for reinstatement in service, revoking the dismissal order passed by OP. The writ was admitted on the same ground by the Court and is pending for adjudication in the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi.
5. Aggrieved by the circumstances above, Complainant has prayed to pass an order to release pension of the Complainant opted under EPF Scheme of the bank and any other order deemed fit by the forum.
6. OP resisted the complaint raising preliminary objection that as services of the Complainant have been terminated by the bank vide order dated 21.03.2002 after conducting departmental enquiry into the memorandum/charge sheet dated 20.01.1998 annexed as Annexure- A, complaint is liable to be dismissed. It is stated that conduct of the Complainant was unbecoming of an officer as he misused his official position and resultantly the bank suffered huge financial loss. The disciplinary authority further observed that the charge of lack of integrity and honesty stands proved.
7. It is next stated that as per Regulation 22 of the Dena Bank (Employees’) Pension Regulations, 1995:- 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.
8. It is further stated that the complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground that it is time barred as the Complainant was dismissed from bank’s service vide memorandum dated 20.01.1998, whereas the complaint has been filed in the year 2009. The other objection raised by OP is that the Complainant is involved in financial irregularities and a CBI case has been filed against him, which is pending before the Special Judge CBI, Tis Hazari , Delhi. It is next stated that complaint is also liable to be dismissed as Complainant has already filed a Writ petition before the Hon’ble Court in which he has claimed reinstatement in bank’s service with all service benefits. As the matter is subjudice before Hon’ble High Court the instant complaint is not maintainable.
9. It is thus prayed that the complaint be dismissed with heavy costs.
10. Complainant has filed rejoinder. Evidence by way of Affidavit and Written Arguments are filed on behalf the parties. Submissions made by counsel for the complainant are heard. Material placed on record is perused.
[
11. It is seen from records that subsequent to the present complaint, the Complainant had filed another complaint Case No. 119/2010, flouting Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC, seeking directions for OP Bank to pay his Provident fund dues. It is seen that this Commission Vide Order dated 22.03.2013 the said subsequently filed complaint was allowed and OP Bank was directed to release his EPF. The said complaint reached its finality when Hon’ble National Commission in Dena Bank, Regional Office Vs Sh. Ravinder Malik in Revision Petition No.2689/2015 dated 01.12.2015 dismissed the revision petition of OP Bank.
12. OPs preliminary objection that Complainant is not a Consumer 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 2009 admitted the Complaint after taking into account the judgment dated 20.08.2003 titled Kerala State Cooperative Employees’ Pension Board Vs Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum IVIVIV(2004) CPJ 627.
13. Second issue raised by OP is that the complaint is time barred as the Complainant was dismissed from bank services vide Memorandum dated 20.01.1998. It is seen from the records that though the Complainant was terminated in the year 2002 ,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 was involved in certain financial irregularities and the CBI has already filed case against him, which was pending before the Special Judge, CBI, Tis Hazari, Delhi. It is seen from the records that vide judgement dated 06.09.2014 and 10.09.2014 Complainant has been convicted and sentenced in CC No.4/2011 CBI Vs Bhajan Singh etc. Otherwise also pendency of criminal case does not bar a consumer from alleging deficiency of service.
14. Next objection of OP that Complainant has filed the Writ Petition before Hon’ble High Court in which he had claimed reinstatement in bank service with all service benefits and as the matter is already subjudice before Hon’ble High Court the complaint is liable to be dismissed. As stated by the complainant, the said writ petition has been admitted .No stay of any sorts has been granted or filed by the parties. Hence, the complaint is maintainable.
15. Short question involved, which requires adjudication in the instant case is whether the Complainant is entitled to pension from OP Bank after having been terminated by the Bank vide order dated 21.03.2002. OP Bank has relied on Regulation 22 of the Dena Bank (Employees’) Pension Regulations, 1995 annexed as Annexure – B with Written Submission. 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.
16. As is apparent from the above clause, any employee on termination from Service shall not qualify for pensionary benefits except in certain situations. Complainant has no where stated that his case falls in exceptions mentioned under regulation 22(2). It is seen from the records that Complainant was suspended on 19.09.1997 from OP Bank due to moral turpitude. After giving him opportunity to defend and after he was found guilty, his services were terminated by OP Bank vide order dated 21.03.2002. Admittedly, Complainant was a member of Dena Bank Employees’ Pension Scheme and as per the Pension Regulations, 1995 employees terminated from service does not qualify for pensionary benefits. We are of the opinion that OP Bank has acted as per the rules and regulations of EPF Scheme; therefore no deficiency of service can be attributed to OP.
17. In view of the discussion above we dismiss the complaint 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.
