PANKAJ KUMAR PATHAK vs CANARA BANK ERSTWHILE SYNDICATE BANK THROUGH ITS GENERAL MANAGER

Judgment text excerpt

$~6 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 21.11.2025. + W.P.(C) 5577/2022 PANKAJ KUMAR PATHAK .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ravi Bassi and Mr. Nitin Kumar, Advs. alongwith the petitioner in person. versus CANARA BANK ERSTWHILE SYNDICATE BANK THROUGH ITS GENERAL MANAGER .....Respondent Through: Mr. Puneet Taneja, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Manmohan Singh Narula, Mr. Amit Yadav and Mr. Anil Kumar, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN AVNEESH JHINGAN, J. (ORAL) 1. This petition is filed raising a grievance against deduction of 1/3rd pension of the petitioner. 2. The brief facts are that the petitioner on 14.02.1983 joined as Probationary Officer with Syndicate Bank and on successful completion of probation was confirmed. 2.1 The Syndicate Bank merged into Canara Bank. On 04.07.2017, the petitioner was chargsheeted under the provisions of Regulation No. 3 of Syndicate Officer Employees (conduct) Regulations 1976. The departmental proceedings culminated in penalty order dated 27.08.2018, compulsorily retiring the petitioner and this order attained finality after dismissal of the appeal. The pension was given to the Signature Not Verified Signed By:AWANISHW.P.(C) 5577/2022 Page 1 of 6 CHANDRA MISHRA Signing Date:23.11.2025 05:05:48 petitioner after one third deduction. Hence, the present petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the deduction of the pension is in violation of principles of natural justice. There is no order passed for deduction of pension, in any case nothing has been communicated to the petitioner till date. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that from the calculation sheet and from the pension order, it is evident that one third pension was deducted consequent to punishment of the compulsory retirement