THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P.NO.4680 OF 2004 O R D E R Heard both the counsel. 2. The petitioner was working as Passing Officer, in the respondent – Bank at Nandikotkur Branch. While so, the Branch Manager, Nandi Kotkur has informed to the General Manager by reported dated 12.5.2003 that the petitioner, who is the passing officer in the said Branch has disbursed an amount of Rs.2,88,800/- instead of Rs.2,88,000/- on 12-4-2003 and thus there is discrepancy and an amount of Rs.800/- was disbursed in excess to the PACs borrowers. Based on the said report, the petitioner, who was on medical leave at the relevant point of time, was placed under suspension by proceedings of the General Manager dated 14.5.2003. Charge was framed against the petitioner and enquiry was conducted and the petitioner submitted his explanation and as the explanation was found to be not satisfactory, domestic enquiry was conducted and in the said domestic enquiry, the charge was found to be proved against the petitioner and considering the enquiry report and the explanation of the petitioner, by the impugned proceedings dated 31.10.2003, the petitioner was imposed the punishment of reduction of his pay from Rs.4670/- to Rs.4,450/- with effect from 1.11.2003 and the period of suspension was treated as privileged leave, to which he is eligible. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that impugned proceedings are passing without supplying copy of the enquiry report and without notice to the petitioner. His is that he made number of representations for treating the period of suspension, as medical leave, since he has 220 days of medical leave to his credit, but his representations were not considered. His further grievance is that he was not granted annual increments from the year 1997 onwards and that though he retired from service on 31.12.2003, his pension and terminal benefits have not been released to him. He further stated that earlier when surcharge proceedings were initiated, he filed appeal before the Tribunal in C.T.A.No.51/99 and by order dated 26.11.2002, the proceedings were set aside and liberty was given to the respondents to initiate enquiry proceedings, but so far no action has been initiated. Therefore, he seeks to set aside the impugned proceedings and direct the respondents to grant consequential benefits. 4. On the other hand, the respondents filed counter affidavit justifying the impugned action taken by them and stated inter alia that they have addressed letter to the Deputy Registrar, Kurnool though letter dated 10.12.2003 requesting to inform the latest position of the surcharge orders and the responsibility of the petitioner, but the Bank has not received any information from the Deputy Registrar, Kurnool and that the representation of the petitioner dated 21.12.2003 was placed before the PIC Committee meeting held on 26.12.2003 regarding sanction of six increments due to the petitioner, and that the PIC Committee has resolved to request the Deputy Registrar, Kurnool to expedite the re-enquiry by obtaining the records from the Tribunal and that the request of the petitioner shall be considered after disposal of the charges based on the findings of the enquiry officer and that the Bank has addressed letter dated 9.1.2004 to the Divisional Co-operative Officer, Kurnool, but till today the Bank has not received any reply from the Divisional Co-operative Officer, Kurnool. With these averments, the writ petition was sought to be dismissed. 5. The specific contention of the petitioner is that before passing the impugned order, no report of the enquiry officer was issued to him and that without giving him an opportunity to reply the report of the enquiry officer and passing the impugned order, amounts to violation of the principles of natural justice. In order to consider this contention, it is necessary to note the relevant portion of impugned order as under: “In pursuance to the reference 1st cited, Sri M.S.Ananda Reddy, Ex-Passing Officer, Nandikotkur Branch has been kept under suspension vide proceedings of the General Manager in the reference 2nd cited for having involved in misappropriation and committing irregularities in the Nandikotkur Branch. The charges were framed against the incumbent through reference 3rd cited and since his explanation received through reference 4th cited is found neither convincing nor satisfactory, Domestic Enquiry was ordered through reference 5th cited. In his report, the Domestic Enquiry Officer has opined that all the charges framed against Sri M.S.Ananda Reddy are proved. After perusing the observations of the Enquiry Officer and explanation submitted by Sri M.S.Ananda Reddy, it is resolved by the P.I.C. Committee to dispose off the charges by inflicting the following punishment through reference 6th cited. 1. Accordingly, Sri M.S.Ananda Reddy is reinstated to duty by revoking suspension with immediate effect duly treating the period of suspension as privileged leave to which he is eligible. 2. The basic pay of the employee is reduced from the present Rs.4,670/- to Rs.4,450/- w.e.f. 1-11-2003. The incumbent is directed to report to the undersigned at Head Office immediately for further postings.” 6. From a reading of the above extracted portion it could be seen that no where it is stated that before passing the impugned order, the petitioner was supplied with the report of the enquiry officer. It is well settled that the impugned proceedings shall reflect the course of action taken by the respondents before passing the impugned order and the impugned order cannot be improved by filing counter affidavit. 7. The Apex Court in the decision reported in MANGING DIRECTOR, ECIL, HYD. v. B.KARUNAKAR[1] held that delinquent employee is entitled to a copy of the report even if the statutory rules do not permit the furnishing of the report or are silent on the subject. 8. In view of the above, as the enquiry report was not supplied to the petitioner before passing the impugned order and as it amounts to violation of the principles of natural justice, I am of the view that the impugned order needs to be set aside. 9. It could be further seen that the petitioner retired from service with effect from 31.12.2003 and his pension and terminal benefits were not fixed. A perusal of the counter affidavit at paragraph nos.10,11 and 12 would show that the enquiry contemplated pursuant to the order of the Tribunal dated 26.11.2002 in C.T.A.No.51/1999, has not started and it is only at the stage of correspondence. The petitioner retired from service in the year 2003 and an employee who has served the Bank, cannot be allowed to face hardship after retirement for the lapses on the part of the respondents in taking action pursuant to the orders of the Tribunal dated 26.11.2002. It is to be noticed that the orders of the Tribunal in C.T.A.No.51/1999 are of the year 2002 and still in the year 2011, the matter is at the stage of correspondence and this cannot be appreciated. 10. Further this court while admitting the writ petition on 17.3.2004 passed the following interim order in WPMP.No.6128/2004: “This is a petition to direct the respondents to pay pension and terminal benefits due to the petitioner pending disposal of the main writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is entitled for the pension and terminal benefits even according to the reduced pay and till the disposal of the writ petition, his pension may be calculated with reference to the reduced pay. The same is not opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents. By proceedings dated 31.10.2003, second respondent imposed a penalty of reduction of pay in respect of the petitioner. Whether the impugned proceedings are true and correct have to be decided in the main writ petition. But as a matter of fact, the petitioner is entitled for the pension and terminal benefits in pursuance of the proceedings dated 31.10.2003. Therefore, the respondents are directed to calculate the pension and terminal benefits with reference to the reduced pay in pursuance of the impugned proceedings dated 31-10-2003. The WPMP is accordingly ordered.” 11. From the above interim order it is clear that this court directed to calculate the pension and terminal benefits due to the petitioner. Even on 10.6.2010, the counsel for the respondents sought time for getting instructions whether the interim order has been complied with or not and till today there is no material on record to show that the pension and other terminal benefits of the petitioner were calculated and on the other hand the counsel for the petitioner submitted that the interim order has not been complied with. 12. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order is set aside and the respondents shall calculate the pension and other terminal benefits on un-reduced pay of the petitioner, including interest thereon in accordance with law and pay the same to the petitioner, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 13. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No costs. AVS --------------------- -------- 10—02— 2011 [1] 1993(5) SCR 532