LexPUNJAB NATIONAL BANK versus M.L., KALRA AND ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
[2008] 2 S.C.R. 200
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK
v.
M.L., KALRA AND ANOTHER
(Civil Appeal No. 4837 of 2005)·
JANUARY 30, 2008
[S~B. SINHA AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.]
Service Law - Pension - Dismissal from service after
date of superannuation -Payment of provisional pension -
From the date of superannuation till the date of order of
C dismissal - Claim for, till the date of order disposing of
departmental appeal -Held: Employee is provisional entitled
to the pension till the date of order of dismissal and not till the
order of disposal of departmental appeal - Punjab National
Bank (Officers') Service Regulations, 1979 - Regulation 20
D (3)' (iii) - Punjab National Bank (Employees') Pension
Regulations, 1995 - Regulation 22 (1).
Departmental proceedings were initiated against the
respondent-employee under Regulation 20 (3) (iii) of
Punjab National Bank (Officers) Service Regulations,
E 1979. In the meantime on 30.11.1994 the respondent was
superannuated. Thereafter the departmental proceedings
were concluded. Disciplinary authority passed order of
dismissal on 22.3.1996. Appeal against the order was
dismissed on 6.3.1997. In the meantime, the respondent
F was paid provisional pension in terms of Regulation 46
of Punjab National Bank (Employees') Pension
Regulations, 1995 from the date of superannuation till the
date of his dismissal. Respondent filed writ petition
claiming provisional pension till the date of disposal of
G his appeal. Single Judge of High Court allowed the writ
petition. The order was further confirmed by Division
Bench of High Court. Hence the present appeal.
Respondent contended that the proceedings
initiated against him were departmental ana not
H
200
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK v. M.L. KALRAAND
ANOTHER [S.B. SINHA, J.]
201
disciplinary. Hence order of dismissal could not have been A
passed against a retired person.
Allowing the appeal, the Court·
HELD: In the context of the present dispute, there is
no distinction between departmental proceeding an~ B
disciplinary proceeding. When an order of dismissal or
removal is passed, clause (1) of Regulation 22 woult;t
apply. Services of an employee can be validly terminated
only once. Only because an appeal has been provided
against an order of dismissal from services, the same ipsb c
facto would not mean that the same would remain under
animated suspension. [Paras10, 12 and 13] [205-A;
206-C, D]
Syndicate Bank Ltd. vs. K.R. V Bhat 1998(1) SCR 327;
P.H. Kalyani vs. MIS.Air France Calcutta 1964 (2) SCR 104; D
Ramesh Chandra Sharma vs. Punjab National Bank and Anr.
2007 (8) SCALE 240 relied on.
State of Maharashtra vs. Chandrabhan Tale 183 (3) SCd
287; Union of/ndia and Ors. vs. J. Ahmed 1979 (2) SCC 286
- distinguished.
1
E
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4837
of 2005.
From the final Judgment and Order dated 23.09.2003 o~
·\
the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in LPA No. 336 of 2003.
F
A. Sharan, ASG., Yashraj Singh Deora, Harshvardhan Jha
and Awadhesh Kumar Singh (for M/s. K.L. Mehta & Co.) for the
Appellant.
Ambhoj Kumar Sinha and Ashok Bhalla for the G
Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
S.B. SINHA, J. 1. The short question involved in this
appeal, is the interpretation of the provisions of the Punjab. H
202
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 2 S.C.R. ~
A National Bank (Officers') Service Regulations, 1979 vis-a-vis
~·
Punjab National Bank (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995
(in short "Pension Regulations"), which arises out of a judgment
and order of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi passed in
LPA No. 336 of 2002.
B
2. Respondent herein was an employee of the New Bank
of India. On or about 4th September, 1993 the said Bank was
1
amalgamated with the appellant bank. A charge sheet was
issued against the respondent on 19th August, 1993. He reached
c
the ag~ of superannuation on 30th November, 1994. Appellant,
however, relying on or on the basis of Regulation 20 (3) (iii) of
the Punjab National Bank (Officers') Service Regulations, 1979,
continued the departmental proceedings against him. The same
was completed after his retirement on 1st August, 1995. An order
of punishment was passed by the disciplinary authority
D dismissing the respondent from service on 22nd March, 1996,
directing :-
;-
"Provisions of Regulation 20(3)(iii) of Punjab National Bank
..,;, -{
I.
Officers Service Regulations, 1979 were invoked vide
I
letter dated 2Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.