Hi Sir, we are undergoing to mental pressure for more than 5 years for the mistkae that was not committed by us. Could you look into the following case and provide your valuable inputs/suggestions. My father retired as Grameena bank officer (rural bank) in 2009. A criminal case has been filed by the bank against my father (and one more employee) after 4 years of the retirement in 2013 regarding the misappropriate of funds (around eighty thousand rupees - 80000). A warrant was issued and my father is in anticipatory bail. The case is pending in district court for around 5 years. My father got all retirement benefits available during that time in 2009. The Grameena bank employees pension was held by government for years and supreme court given judgment on 25-Apr-2018 that the pension should be given to all grameena bank employees from July-2018 onwards. Could you clarify whether my father will get pension since the case is still pending in the district court? Also little bit more details on the case : The money was actually overpayed to the customer by the cashier and my father was the manager of the bank during that time (Jan-2009). The bank has undergone then the recent computerization and these people were not much aware of the computer usage. The issue was identified after the 4 years of the incident in the mid of 2013 and by the time the customer came back and made the repayment, the bank approached the court. my questions are 1) If any case is pending in the court, the employee can get the pension? 2) The bank normally undergoes to inspection for every 1.5 years and why it took 4 long years to identify the incident? 3) After the incident identified, the customer came back and done the repayment. During the same time the bank has approached the court. If the account balance is clear, does the court go with proceedings? 4) How can we speed the court proceedings since it is pending for more than 5 years in district court? 5) We sense/feel very strongly that there is a conspiracy by the cashier who made the over payment to the customer. 6) My father earned good name in his 30 years of service and has spotless career. How a person who retires in 3 months can do fraud for just eighty thousand (80000/-) where he spent whole career perfectly? We suspect big conspiracy by the cashier during that time. The lawyers/bank officials saying very confidently that my father will be acquitted since the account balance has come to normal now and the customer has done the repayment. But the court takes it more time because of the formal procedure. Could you provide your valuable suggestions on this? Thank you, Vijay
your father would be entitled to receive his pension as case instituted 4 years after after his retirement
2) the fault was of cashier who made payment . your father is not responsible for payment made by cashier
3) litigation is long drawn process and hence case would take around 10 years to be disposed of
4) your father can file petition in HC to seek expedited hearing
n the case of UOI Vs. J.P.Sharma WP(C) 6465/2003 Honble Delhi High Court viewed that the gratuity of retired Govt. servant could not withheld for any length of time to await the instituton of departmental or judicial proceedings even after his retirement. The Relevant extract of said judgment of Honble High Court read as under.
22. This leads us to the question, as to what is the inter play of the rights of the Government and the retired Government servant with regard to the fixation of provisional pension and the withholding of the gratuity of the retired Government servant by the Government. Is it, that in every case where neither departmental proceedings nor judicial proceedings are instituted, as contemplated by Rule 9(6) as on the date of retirement of the Government servant, he immediately becomes entitled to receive full pension and gratuity? In such a situation, if departmental or judicial proceedings are instituted after the lapse of sometime from the date of the retirement of Government servant, but within the time permissible under Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) or otherwise within the period of limitation, would the Government not be entitled to fix the provisional pension and, in case by then the gratuity has not been paid to the retired Government servant would the Government not be entitled to withhold the gratuity in terms of Rule 9 (4) and Rule 69(1)(c) of the Pension Rules?
23. We may note that unlike for the initiation of
departmental proceedings, for the initiation of judicial
proceedings, there is no time limit prescribed under the Pension Rules within which the same can be initiated after the retirement of the government servant. However, judicial proceedings, be they civil or criminal, would be subject to the laws of limitation. A perusal of Rule 9(4) would show that the said Rule is applicable, inter alia, to every case where a departmental or judicial proceedings is instituted against the retired government servant. The said sub-rule(4) does not say that the departmental or judicial proceedings have necessarily to be in existence on the date of superannuation of the government servant. This means that even when the departmental or judicial proceedings are validly instituted subsequent to the date of superannuation, a provisional pension as provided in Rule 69 would be sanctioned in favour of the government servant.
24. The pension of a government servant, who is due to retirement, is required to be fixed well in advance, so that there is no delay in payment of pension to him immediately upon his retirement. Reference may be made to the provisions contained in Chapter VIII and in Rules 83 & 85 of the Pension Rules. Consequently, it follows that in respect of a government servant to whom Rule 9(4) of the Pension Rule does not apply, the Government is obliged to fix and pay the full pension and continue to pay the same, until a situation arises (with the institution of valid proceedings) as contemplated in Rule 9(4). Once a situation covered by Rule 9(4) arises, the government would become entitled to henceforth fix the provisional pension and continue to pay the same until the conclusion of the proceedings, and subject to the final outcome of the proceedings. While the right to receive monthly pension accrues immediately upon retirement, and the same is to be paid vide Rule 85(2) monthly on or after the last working day of the month to which the pension relates...................., so far as gratuity is concerned, there is no specific Rule with regard to disbursement thereof. Rule 85(1) states Except as otherwise provided in these Rules, a gratuity shall be paid in lump sum. While in respect of pension a statutory right exists, to receive pension immediately upon retirement month by month. There is no time bound prescription with regard to release of gratuity to the retired government servant. This also appears to be the scheme as evident from Rule 9(1) of the Pension Rules. The question of withholding pension or gratuity or both either in full or in part by the President can arise only in a situation where the same has in fact not been paid to the retired government servant. From the aforesaid analysis of the Pension Rules, we draw the following conclusions:-
(i) In a case where neither departmental proceedings nor judicial proceedings are instituted as contemplated by Rule 9(6) of the Pension Rules as on the date of retirement of the Government servant, he immediately becomes entitled to receive the full pension.
(ii) If departmental or judicial proceedings are instituted validly after the retirement of the Government servant, but within the time permissible under Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) or otherwise within the period of limitation, the government would become entitled to fix provisional pension to be paid henceforth till the conclusion of the proceedings and would abide by the final decision arrived at in the proceedings in relation to the payment of the pension.
(iii) While a Government servant does become entitled to receive gratuity upon retirement (when proceedings as contemplated by Rule 9(6) are not in existence on the ate of his retirement),there is no rule that the same is payable immediately upon retirement. If proceedings are validly instituted after the date of retirement of the Government servant, but prior to the disbursement of the gratuity to him, the Government servant cannot claim release of gratuity till so long as the proceedings are not concluded, and the final decision with regard to disbursement of gratuity would abide by the outcome of the proceedings.
Hello sir., without looking at the FIR and the accusations made by bank officials and other witnesses it is very difficult to guide you over the merits of the case ..kindly share the FIR for detailed guidance,,,The supreme court judgment was in relation to any appeal filed by you?...IF yes. then the bank officials will have to release the pension of your father
1. Yes he can get the pension, file a writ in the HC of they are not disbursing the pension.
2. On these facts you may challenge the proceedings initiated by the bank.
3. Please get in touch with a lawyer and challenge the proceedings before the HC. The same should have been done earlier.
4. You may file an application before the DJ for expediting the process.
53. If you think there is a conspiracy and that the necessary compliance has not been made then you may go ahead challenge the proceedings before the HC.
Regards
Thanks for the reply Sir, in my fathers bank, normally the transaction will be initiated by the manager but the cashier has to verify whether the account has sufficient amount and then disburse. Before the computerization, everything used to happen through papers but after computerization, the initiation happens through computer and the cashier will check in the system and then disburses the amount. We are suspecting the cashier has stolen the password of my father and then initiated the transaction for more money. Whatever may be the case, the money was payed back to the bank (as per bank records the customer payed the money back to the bank by saying that he received more money). From employer's perspective the account is normal. Bank did not have any loss. can a case will be stronger if it is filed after 4 years (post retirement) and also the money is received by the bank?? If we argue in the court by saying the same point that how things happened we were not aware and for 4 years in none of the audits it was found and the money (just 80000) also payed back by the customer.Not even single notice by the bank to my father. By considering all thee points, what chances are there for him getting acquitted?
that is the thing there has been a huge delay and on this ground you should have approached the HC earlier.
There are very high chances that your father will get an acquittal.
regards
Case would be stronger as money received by bank
It should be your case that mistake committed by cashier as he disbursed funds in excess
1. His pension could have been withheld only incase a departmental action was pending against him. This is not a departmental proceedings, nut a criminal trial and hence, withholding of pension is bad.
2. This is a very strong point of defence and the Court on this point alone may acquit your father.
3.No, the fact that the customer has repaid and the loss incurred by the bank has been set-off does not implies that the criminal trial will be given up.
4. Do effective pairvi of the matter.
1. The pension disbursing authority may decide about it, however since in this cae the money has been recovered, the pension may not be stopped, but it depends on the person who is sitting as authority in the chair.
2. No comments
3. Since the matter was reported to police, the law will take its own recourse on this, your father may challenge the same in court on merits and documentary evidences in his side.
4. File a petition before high court seeking direction for an expeditious trial.
5. No comments.
6. -do-
From your contents it can be opined that since your father's role was just a manager's role, he is not directly involved in the crime even if it is proved, moreover since the customer has repaid the amount, the court may take a lenient view on the charges against your father.
Whatever you have posted in the subsequent post are matter of arguments.
You should remember one thing that this lapse was not found by the bank in its routine inspection.
This irregularity was detected by the auditors during one of the annual auditing.
You think that this was found just recently, the auditors might have reported the matter to the top authority, who have followed the further legal procedures in this regard.
If the crime was reported, then there is nothing wrong in reporting the crime through police to bring the culprits to books.
Since this matter was taken up in a hurry by the police, your father may challenge the same in the trial court properly as per law with the support of merits and evidences in his side.
Dear Sir,
It appears false case is filed against your father. Please challenge before High Court and get stay and thereafter quashing of entire proceedings as there is inordinate in delay.
