Madras High Court. File
| Photo Credit: K. Pichumani
The “righteousness” of a woman in persuading her husband, when he was a bank employee, to take responsibility for the fraudulent withdrawal of funds from a customer’s account has impressed the Madras High Court so much that it has ordered the grant of a monthly pension to the now-discharged employee.
Disposing of a writ petition pending since 2010, Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy wrote: “This matter stands as an exemplary case as to how a spouse can help the other and show the path of aram (righteousness) and bring the other within the fold of the right path, when he or she strays away.”
He went on to write: “As a matter of fact, the said exemplary good conduct on the part of the petitioner’s wife, which is borne out from the records, is one of the reasons for this court to consider the issue of granting of pension and not leaving the parties to go for one more round of litigation.”
Upon perusing the records, the judge found that the petitioner J. James (name changed) was appointed as a clerk/shroff under the sports quota at Indian Bank in 1990. In 2002, ₹5.75 lakh was found missing from a customer’s account when the petitoner was serving at the bank’s Egmore branch in Chennai.
On the day of the inquiry, the needle of suspicion pointed towards the petitioner — on the basis of his handwriting — but he refused to confess. However, later in the day, the bank officials received a phone call from the petitioner’s wife, who suspected that her husband had been involved in some foul play.
The officials rushed to the petitioner’s house and after much persuasion by his wife, he confessed to the crime and gave it in writing too. Thereafter, the woman sought monetary assistance from her relatives, pooled in as much money as she could, and returned the entire misappropriated sum of ₹5.75 lakh to the bank.
Since the money was returned, no criminal prosecution was initiated. However, the bank took departmental action and dismissed the petitioner from service in 2004. When he challenged the dismissal order, a Labour Court, in 2009, ordered the reduction of punishment from dismissal to discharge from service.
Challenging Labour Court order
The petitioner had filed the present writ petition challenging the Labour Court’s order. He contended that there was absolutely no material whatsoever but for his confession, reportedly obtained under duress, to prove the guilt and hence, he ought not to have been punished in the departmental proceedings.
However, Justice Chakravarthy rejected the contention and upheld the punishment of discharge of service as ordered by the Labour Court. He also found that the bank had only offered to pay gratuity, and not pension, after the Labour Court’s order, but the petitioner had not accepted the gratuity amount.
Highly impressed by the righteous conduct of the petitioner’s wife, the judge analysed the law on grant of pension and held that the petitioner would be entitled to both gratuity as well as pension. He ordered that the gratuity amount must be paid to him, without any interest, within 12 weeks.
He further directed the bank to also sanction monthly pension to the petitioner and pay him the arrears too within 12 weeks. “If the arrears and pension are not paid within a period of 12 weeks, then thereafter, the same shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum,” he orderd.
Before parting with the case, the judge recorded his appreciation for the exemplary conduct displayed by the writ petitioner’s wife.
Published – March 08, 2025 11:24 am IST
