2025 (7) TMI 998

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y Authority (IA). During the inquiry, appellant attained superannuation on 30.11.2014 but the enquiry was continued under Regulation 20(3)(iii) of Central Bank of India (Officers') Service Regulations, 1979 Hereinafter, Service Regulations. He submitted inquiry report holding the appellant failed to discharge his duties with utmost integrity and honesty which was unbecoming of a Bank officer and exposed the Bank to huge financial loss for his pecuniary gain. Inquiry report was served on the appellant, and he replied to it. After considering his reply disciplinary authority i.e., Deputy General Manager (a scale VI officer) upheld the findings of the inquiry officer and imposed major penalty of compulsory retirement under Rule 4 (h) of Central Bank of India Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 Hereinafter, Discipline and Appeal Regulations. with effect from date of superannuation. Appellant submitted an appeal before appellate authority i.e., Field General Manager (a scale VII officer). 5. During pendency of the appeal, Regional Manager, Purnea, a scale IV officer, i.e., equivalent to scale of the appellant, on 05.08.2015 recommended minimum payable pension u....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....do not overlap each other. As per clause (1), an authority higher than the authority competent to impose compulsory retirement penalty may grant pension at a rate not less than twothird whereas clause (2) permits the competent authority awarding compulsory retirement to award less than full pension in exercise of its original, appellate or reviewing powers. Only in the latter case consultation with Board of Directors is necessary. As the pension was reduced by the Field General Manager, a scale VII officer who is an authority higher in rank than the disciplinary authority, a scale VI officer no prior consultation was necessary, and the impugned decision did not call for interference. 11. The controversy centres around interpretation of regulation 33 of the Pension Regulations which provides for compulsory retirement pension as follows: " 33. Compulsory Retirement Pension 1. An employee compulsorily retired from service as a penalty on or after 1st day of November, 1993 in terms of Central Bank of India Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 or awards/settlements may be granted by the authority higher than the authority competent to impose such penalty, ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pension under clause (1) but also the appellate authority under Discipline and Appeal Regulations who could exercise appellate powers to reduce pension under clause (2) of Pension Regulations. 14. The bank would argue as pension was reduced under regulation 33(1) by Field General Manager as an authority superior to disciplinary authority competent to impose penalty, no prior consultation with Board was necessary, unlike cases where Competent Authority i.e., disciplinary authority while awarding compulsory retirement directs pension less than full compensation pension. 15. Such argument is fallacious for following reasons. Clause (2) permits the Competent Authority to award pension in exercise of not only original but also appellate or reviewing powers. If the expression 'Competent Authority' in clause (2) is restricted to disciplinary authority alone, reduction of pension in exercise of appellate or review power would become nugatory. Any interpretation which renders words or expressions in a statute otiose ought to be eschewed.5 16. Given this situation to accept the bank's interpretation that the two clauses ought to be read independent of one another would give rise to a piqu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tion 33 must be read conjointly and in all cases when the full pension admissible to a compulsorily retired employee under the regulations is reduced, a prior consultation with the Board is necessary. 20. It would be argued the Field General Manager's order to reduce pension may be placed before the Board for expost facto approval. Whether 'prior consultation' is mandatory or a post facto approval would suffice would depend on various factors including nature of consultation, status of the authority consulted, and the rights affected by the decision. 21. A plain reading of regulation 33 would show award of pension less than full pension is to be done with prior consultation of the Board of Directors. Such prior consultation with the highest authority of the Bank i.e., Board of Directors must be understood as a valuable mandatory safeguard before an employee's constitutional right to pension is curtailed. In these circumstances, a post facto approval cannot be a substitute of prior consultation with the Board before the decision is made. Reference may be made to Indian Administrative Service (S.C.S.) Association, U.P. & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. (1993) Supp (1) SCC 730 wherei....