JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA (ORAL) THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING

The present Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (substituted now) (for short “the Act”) has been filed by the Petitioner (hereinafter be referred as “the Complainant”) challenging the dismissal of his Complaint No.74 of 2013 vide order dated 07.12.2017 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-X, Delhi (for short “the District Forum”) and dismissal of his Appeal No.10/2018 vide order dated 06.07.2020 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (for short “the State Commission”) confirming the order of the District Forum.

2.       The brief facts of the case are that the Complainant/Petitioner had been working with the Respondent Bank and was a member of Contributory Provident Fund Scheme.  In the year 1995, he opted for Family Pension Scheme under the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995 in lieu of the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme.  At the relevant time, he was working as Senior Manager and Branch In-charge.  During the proceedings under Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) against the Bank, he was found prima-facie involved in the corruption.  Criminal enquiries under Prevention of Corruption Act had started against him and he was finally convicted under the said Act in 2018.  The order of conviction is under challenge as an Appeal has been filed by the Complainant.  A disciplinary proceeding was initiated and the charges stood proved against him and vide order dated 23.06.2010, he was dismissed from the service.  He preferred an Appeal against his dismissal and the appellate authority vide its order dated 07.10.2012 dismissed the Appeal.  Thereafter Review Petition against the order of dismissal was also dismissed by the appellate authority.  He had subsequently challenged his dismissal order before the High Court of Delhi which is still pending.   

3.      The Complainant was not paid any pension under the Pension Scheme to which he was a member and therefore, he had filed the Complaint before the District Forum on 07.02.2013.  His main contention was that without following the prescribed procedure and without passing any order of forfeiture of his pension, the pension had wrongly been denied to him.  He had sought directions from the District Forum for payment of his pension, compensation and costs of litigation.

4.      The Respondent Bank in their reply had submitted that in the Appeal pending before the High Court, the Complainant had already sought the same reliefs, i.e. payment of his pension along with setting aside of his dismissal order from the services and therefore, he cannot file a Complaint for the same reliefs before the consumer fora.  Another contention of the Respondent Bank was that the Complainant is not a consumer and hence, the District Forum had no jurisdiction.  On merits, it is submitted that under Regulation 22 of Canara Bank (Employee’s) Pension Regulation 1995, upon dismissal from services, an employee is not entitled to any pensionery benefits and therefore, his claim for pension was not maintainable.

5.      Parties led their evidences before the District Forum.  After hearing the arguments of learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the record, the District Forum held that the Regulation 22 of Canara Bank (Employee’s) Pension Regulation 1995 clearly makes a terminated employee disentitled for the pensionery benefits and on this ground, dismissed the Complaint.

6.      The Complainant had challenged this order of the District Forum in Appeal before the State Commission.  The Appeal was dismissed on the ground that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent Bank and denial of pension was in terms of the Regulation 22.

7.      The present Revision Petition has been filed alleging that without passing any order of forfeiture of pension, procedure prescribed under Regulation 43, 45 and 48 amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent Bank and hence, the findings of the Fora below are perverse and liable to be set aside.

8.      I have heard the learned Counsel for the Complainant at length and perused the record.  The admitted facts are that the Complainant was working as a Senior Manager and Branch In-charge of the Respondent Bank and was a member of Contributory Provident Fund Scheme.  It is also an admitted fact that he had been convicted under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 though his Appeal against the said conviction is pending.  It is also an admitted fact that after disciplinary enquiry his services were terminated and the challenge against his termination is pending before the High Court.  Rule 22 of the Regulation governing the bodies is reproduced as under:

          “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.”

    

   9.      This Regulation clearly holds that a terminated employee is not entitled to the pensioner benefits.  Once this Rule takes away the right of a dismissed/terminated employee for pension, there is no requirement for the disciplinary authority to pass any formal order relating to denial of pension.  Regulations 43, 45 and 48 do not come to the rescue of the Complainant in view of the specific Rule 22 of the Regulations.  The Fora below have rightly relied on this Rule.  I also found no perversity in the impugned order.   The impugned order is based on the legal positions governing the rights of the parties.  The present Revision Petition has no merit.  The same is dismissed  in limine.