Complaint is filed on 19-4-2010
Compliant disposed on 1-2-2011
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
::AT:: KARIMNAGAR
PRESENT: HON’BLE SRI K. DEVI PRASAD, B.Sc., LL.B., PRESIDENT
SMT. E. LAXMI, M.A.,LL.M.,PGDCA (CONSUMER AWARENESS), MEMBER
TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY, TWO THOUSAND ELEVEN
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 53 OF 2010
Between:
Cheruku Anantha Reddy, S/o. Kista Reddy, Age 63 years, Occ: Retd., K.D.C.C. Bank Employee, R/o. H.No.10-3-298, Vidyanagar locality of Karimnagar town.
…Complainant
AND
The General Manager/Chief Executive Officer, Karimnagar district Co-Operative Central Bank, (K.D.C.C. Bank), Near 1-Town Police Station, Karimnagar.
…Opposite Party
This complaint is coming up before us for final hearing on 19-1-2011, in the presence of Sri B. Harshavardhan Reddy Advocate for complainant and Sri T. Lakshmankumar, Advocate for opposite party, and on perusing the material papers on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Forum passed the following
::ORDER::
1. This complaint is filed under Section 12 of C.P. Act, 1986 praying this Forum to direct the opposite party to release the withheld terminal benefits of Rs.70,000/- with interest.
2. The brief averments of the complaint are that the complainant worked as Asst. Manager in K.D.C.C. Bank Karimnagar and retired from service at Head office on 30.9.2005. As some allegations in respect of forging and tampering of Ten Demand Drafts were made against him during his posting at Head Office, the opposite party has withheld a sum of Rs.70,000/- out of his terminal benefits towards clearance of the alleged liability determined against him and further the said amount is kept under suspense account. The complainant further submitted that the Commissioner for Cooperation & Registrar of Cooperative Societies A.P> Hyderabad has got conducted an elaborate enquiry by Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies vide RC No.1230-L (1) and the Joint Registrar filed report Dt: 23.9.2009 stating that no liability for the altered D.Ds need to be fixed against all the Five Bank employees including the complainant herein and further ordered that the amount of Rs.3,25,813 paid in excess under the tampered D.Ds shall be recovered from the real culprits.
3. The complainant further submitted that he was humiliated, defamed and subjected to mental harassment even though there is no fault on his side, due to which he got Paralysis Stroke and he went up to the stage of Coma. After recovery the complainant approached opposite party several times and made representation demanding to pay his terminal benefit of Rs.70,000/- which was stopped at the time of retirement. But the opposite party postponed the matter saying that he would settle the claim amount after filing of report by Joint Registrar under Section 60(1) of the A.P.C.S.Act 1964. Even after receiving the said report the opposite party did not pay any attention to settle the due amount which amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, the complainant got issued Legal Notice on 12.2.2010 to the opposite party demanding to settle the due amount and the same was served on him but the opposite party did not choose to file reply or to pay the amount. Therefore, the complainant filed this complaint.
4. The opposite party filed his Written Version submitting that the complainant was placed under suspension and issued Charge Memo No.B5/793/2002-03 Dt: 25.6.2002 calling his explanation for committing of gross misconduct as per the service regulations of the Bank. After receiving the explanation the opposite party ordered for domestic enquiry by appointing enquiry officer. Basing on the findings of domestic enquiry report, the bank has issued Show-cause Notice calling his explanations as to why the punishment reducing his basic pay into minimum time scale Asst. Manager category i.e. Rs.6,640/- to Rs.2,650/- as per the provisions of settlement/Award Dt: 15.6.1997 vide Bank Show-cause Notice Letter No.B5/1595/2004-05 Dt: 28.10.2003. After receiving explanation the disciplinary authority/District Collector has confirmed the proposed punishment under Bank proceedings no. B5/ 892/2004-05 Dt: 28.7.2004.
5. The opposite party further submitted that the complainant had filed a W.P.No.13986/2004 challenging the Bank Proceedings Dt: 28.7.2004. The Hon’ble High Court passed the orders setting aside the impugned proceedings stating that the punishment imposed is not covered under the settlement of award Dt: 15.6.1997 and reminding the matter to the disciplinary authority for passing appropriate orders imposing punishment in accordance with the settlement of the award, after giving reasonable opportunity to the complainant by the orders Dt: 8.9.2005. Again the opposite party has issued fresh Show-cause Notice No.B5/1350/2005-06 Dt: 12.9.2005, calling explanation from the complainant as to why he should not be dismissed from the services of the bank besides recovery of amount of Rs.81,663/- together with interest @ 18% P.A. Then the complainant filed another W.P.No.20433/2005 in the Hon’ble High Court against the Show-cause notice Dt: 12.9.2005. As per the orders of Hon’ble High Court the bank has passed the final orders of stoppage of one annual grade increment of Rs.240/- and recovery of Rs.70,000/- from the retirement benefits of the complainant towards financial loss caused to the opposite party Bank vide Bank Proceedings No.B5/1430/2005-06 Dt: 29.9.2005. The said proceedings served to the complainant on 30.9.2005.
6. The opposite party further submitted that the domestic enquiry and surcharge enquiry are two different independent enquiries, not related to each other. As per the finding of the domestic enquiry the bank can initiate the disciplinary proceedings as well as recovery of financial loss caused to the bank as per the service regulations from its erring employees. The surcharge enquiry conducted according to the provisions of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act 1964 to initiate the recovery proceedings. The complainant is not a consumer as he is involved in negligence of duty by passing several tampered forged demand drafts, the opposite party implemented the orders of Hon’ble High Court in WP No.20433/2005. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
7. The complainant filed his Proof Affidavit reiterating the averments made in the complaint and filed documents which are marked as EW.A1 to A3. Ex.A1 is the photo copy of Joint Registrar’s Report Dt: 23.11.2009. Ex.A2 is the office copy of Legal Notice Dt:12.2.2010 issued by counsel for complainant. Ex.A3 is the postal acknowledgement card Dt: 18.2.2009.
8. The opposite party filed his Proof Affidavit reiterating the averments made in the counter and the documents filed on behalf of them are marked as Ex.B1 to B7. Ex.B1 is the photo copy of Charge Memo Dt: 25.6.2002 issued to complainant. Ex.B2 is the carbon copy of Show-cause Notice Dt: 28.10.2003. Ex.B3 is the photo copy of punishment proceedings no. B5/892/2004-05 issued by the District Collector Dt: 28.7.2004. Ex.B4 is the photo copy of Hon’ble High Court in W.P.No.13986/2004 Dt: 18.9.2005. Ex.B5 is another Show-cause Notice Dt: 12.9.2005 issued to complainant. Ex.B6 is the photo copy of Hon’ble High Court in W.P.No.20433/2005 Dt: 28.9.2005. Ex.B7 is the photo copy of punishment proceedings no. B5/1430/2005-06 issued by the District Collector Dt: 29.9.2005
9. The point for consideration is whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite party, if so, to what relief the complainant is entitled?
10. The complainant filed complaint alleging that the opposite party withheld sum of Rs.70,000/- out of terminal benefits towards the clearance of the alleged liability determined against him by the disciplinary authority with interest at 18% P.A. It is alleged by the complainant that as per the enquiry report Dt: 23.9.2009 of the Joint Registrar Cooperative Society there was no clinching evidence against the complainant, and all the five bank employees including the complainant herein were found not liable. Therefore, since withholding of terminal benefits of Rs.70,000/- which was stopped at the time of retirement amounts to deficiency in service. Inspite of issue of Legal Notice the complainant did not pay the said amount.
11. It is the case of the opposite party that the complainant himself approached the Hon’ble High Court seeking a direction under Writ of Mandamus to set aside the impugned proceedings of the District Collector Dt: 28.7.2004. It is alleged by the opposite party that as per the directions of the Hon’ble High Court the opposite party withheld an amount of Rs.70,000/- which was imposed towards the punishment of the complainant in the disciplinary proceedings. Therefore, the question of deficiency of service does not arise.
12. Though the written arguments filed by the complainant denying the allegations made by the opposite party in the P.A., the learned counsel for the complainant contended that the amount i.e. Rs.70,000/- withheld from the retirement benefits of the complainant have been kept in suspense account as such the complainant approached the opposite party to refund the amount and since the opposite party did not refund the amount the complainant filed this complaint.
13. It is an admitted fact that the complainant was retired as Assistant Manager in KDCC Bank, Karimnagar on 30.9.2005 on attaining the superannuation. While the complainant was in service he was placed under suspension for committing gross misconduct. As per the service regulations of the bank his explanation was called for and the opposite party after receiving explanation ordered for domestic enquiry and the enquiry officer submitted his report on 25.3.2003 wherein it is held that the charges were proved against the complainant. The complainant against the Show Cause Notice issued to him, for reducing his basic pay as punishment, approached the Hon’ble High Court by filing Writ Petition No.13986/04 challenging the proceedings Dt: 28.7.2004. The Hon’ble High Court under Ex.B4 remanded the case to the disciplinary authority for passing appropriate orders to impose punishment in accordance with the settlement of award after giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner. As per the said directions the disciplinary authority i.e. District Collector through his order Dt: 29.9.2005 imposed punishment of stoppage of one annual increment which fell due on 16.8.2004 for Rs.240/- and further recovery of Rs.70,000/- from his retirement benefits towards the financial loss caused to the bank. Further, the complainant was permitted to retire from service of the bank on 30.9.2005. A.N. Aggrieved by the order of the 5th respondent another Writ of Mandamus was filed by the complainant for declaring the action of the 5th respondent (District Collector) is illegal. That Writ Petition no.20433 of 2005 was disposed of on 28.9.2005 by the Hon’ble High Court directing the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner shall stand concluded with the stoppage of last increment that was due to the petitioner and that the respondents shall be entitled to withhold sum of Rs.70,000/- from the retirement benefits payable to the petitioner.
14. No further orders have been passed either by the disciplinary authority i.e. District Collector or by the Hon’ble High Court with regard to the amount withheld by the opposite party from the retirement benefits payable to the petitioner. Therefore, when there is order from the Hon’ble High Court that the stoppage of last increment that was due to the petitioner and to withhold sum of Rs.70,000/- from the retirement benefits payable to the petitioner now this Forum cannot pass any order directing the opposite parties to pay the said amount.
15. In view of the above said order of the Hon’ble High Court Dt; 29.9.2005 the bank authorities’ i.e. opposite party herein withheld the payment of the last increment due to the petitioner and also withheld sum of Rs.70,000/- from the retirement benefits payable to the petitioner. Therefore, as per the directions of the Hon’ble High Court only the amount was withheld and the last increment was stopped. Therefore, now this Forum cannot pass any order in favour of the complainant for the same amount which was ordered to be withheld by the Hon’ble High Court. As such there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties.
16. In the result the complaint is dismissed and no order as to costs.
Dictated to Stenographer (DUR) and transcribed by her, after correction the orders pronounced by us in the open court this the 1st day of February, 2011.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
NO ORAL EVIDENCE HAS BEEN ADDUCED ON EITHER SIDE
FOR COMPLAINANT:
Ex.A1 is the photo copy of Joint Registrar’s Report Dt: 23.11.2009.
Ex.A2 is the office copy of Legal Notice Dt:12.2.2010 issued by counsel for
complainant.
Ex.A3 is the postal acknowledgement card Dt: 18.2.2009.
FOR OPPOSITE PARTY:
Ex.B1 is the photo copy of Charge Memo Dt: 25.6.2002 issued to complainant.
Ex.B2 is the carbon copy of Show-cause Notice Dt: 28.10.2003.
Ex.B3 is the photo copy of punishment proceedings no. B5/892/2004-05 issued by the District Collector Dt: 28.7.2004.
Ex.B4 is the photo copy of Hon’ble High Court in W.P.No.13986/2004 Dt: 18.9.2005.
Ex.B5 is another Show-cause Notice Dt: 12.9.2005 issued to complainant.
Ex.B6 is the photo copy of Hon’ble High Court in W.P.No.20433/2005 Dt: 28.9.2005.
Ex.B7 is the photo copy of punishment proceedings no. B5/1430/2005-06 issued by the District Collector Dt: 29.9.2005
MEMBER PRESIDENT
