'Unfortunate & Shocking': Punjab & Haryana High Court Imposes ₹10 Lakh Cost On Bank For Withholding Retiral Benefits Of Employee For Over 40 Yrs

Observing that the case is "unfortunate and shocking", the Punjab & Haryana High Court has imposed an exemplary cost of Rs.10 Lakh on a Bank for holding retiral benefits of its employee for 40 years over allegations of embezzlement and violating natural justice in disciplinary proceedings.

Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri said, "It is an extremely unfortunate situation whereby because of the fault of the Bank, a person had to litigate for more than 40 years and instead of supporting his family, he diverted his money, if at all, towards litigation. It is not a case that at any point of time any fault can be found on the part the petitioner. Even till date there is no order of dismissal or punishment against the petitioner in operation because it has already been set aside. Overall conduct of the Bank deserves to be condemned and deprecated."

These observations came in response to the plea of Virendra Kumar who joined as secretary in Cooperative Societies (Credit), Haryana and faced a chargesheet alleging embezzlement of Rs.13,000 in 1981

Over the next 40 years, Kumar was dismissed thrice based on the same charge sheet, however, the orders were set aside three times by higher authorities and courts for violation of natural justice principles. Each dismissal led to an appeal that found the initial inquiries flawed due to procedural and substantial violations, particularly in the administration of natural justice, leading to repeated remands back to the inquiry stage. 

Kumar sought direction from the bank to treat his service and pay arrears of salary from the date of his suspension i.e. 22.12.1983 till reinstatement along with interest and to pay him subsistence allowance for the period of his suspension.

He also sought directions to release the pensionary benefits of the petitioner along with interest @ 18%. During the litigation in 2022, Kumar passed away and his legal representatives were impleaded.

 After hearing the submissions the Court noted, "For four decades, the petitioner had to knock the doors of different Courts at various levels only because the respondent-Bank repeatedly violated principles of natural justice while conducting a departmental enquiry which is quasi judicial in nature. Ultimately when he died in the year 2022, the enquiry was still at the same stage after remand orders passed thrice."

"This Court is of a considered view that there had been an immense miscarriage of justice. Petitioner kept on seeking justice due to violation of principles of natural justice wherein thrice matter was remanded back to the stage of enquiry and the Bank repeatedly violated these rules of natural justice despite earlier action being vitiated due to such violation. It is indeed unfortunate and shocking," it added.

Justice Puri said, "Since there is no order of any punishment etc. against the petitioner, the legal representatives of the petitioner will be entitled for all the retiral benefits accrued to the petitioner on the date of his attaining the age of superannuation i.e. on 28.02.2012."

Consequently, the Court directed the bank to release all the retiral benefits to the legal representatives of the petitioner along with interest @ 6% per annum.

So far as the prayer of the petitioner with regard to the grant of salary for the period during which he did not discharge his duties because of the repeated orders of dismissal is concerned, the Court said: "Considering the background and the aforesaid sequence of events since the Bank has caused miscarriage of justice and illegally kept away the petitioner from discharging his duties, the petitioner shall also be entitled for grant of salary alongwith all consequential benefits from 22.12.1983 i.e. date of his initial suspension till the date he attained the age of superannuation i.e. 28.02.2012."

Considering the background facts and circumstances of the present case with regard to more than 40 years of litigation by the petitioner pertaining to a charge sheet of the year 1981 in which to date there is no order of punishment in operation, the judge said "it is the duty of this Court to also consider payment of costs."

While noting that "the petitioner had four children to support who was minor at that time including three daughters and one son besides wife who has also died," the Court took "judicial cognizance of the fact that the petitioner who is now deceased must have spent a lot of money in litigation at numerous levels for more than 40 years and that too without any adequate source of income and therefore the money must have been diverted towards litigation which ought to have been utilized to support his family including four children and his wife."

The Court opined it was the bank who was at fault for not adhering to the principles of natural justice which ultimately resulted in litigation for three times the dismissal orders were set aside and three times the matter was remanded back and it all got elongated for more than 40 years which was the time period during which the petitioner was to serve the Bank.

"It is an extremely unfortuate situation whereby because of the fault of the Bank, a person had to litigate for more than 40 years and instead of supporting his family, he diverted his money, if at all, towards litigation," it remarked.

In light of the above, the Court imposed exemplary costs of Rs. 10 lakh and directed that the costs be paid to all the legal representatives of the petitioner in equal proportion within a period of four months.

 Anurag Jain, Advocate with  Rahul Dahiya, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Kapil Bansal, DAG, Haryana.

2024 LiveLaw (PH) 174

Rajvir Singh Sihag, Advocate, for respondents No.2 and 3.

Click here to read/download the order