Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY & G. SHYAM PRASAD, JJ.
Andhra Bank Represented by its Chairman & Managing Director Saifabad & Others –Petitioner
Versus
Y. Shivaji – Respondent
Writ Appeal No. 502 of 2016
Decided On : 12-08-2016
Andhra Bank Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1981 – Regulation 4(h) – Respondent was a Scale-III Officer in appellant No.1-Bank. A departmental enquiry was instituted against respondent into his conduct in sanction and disbursal of certain OCC limits, housing loans and car loans. Charges were framed against respondent and an Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer were appointed. Pending the enquiry, respondent was also placed under suspension – In parallel, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has prosecuted the respondent. By Judgment, II Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, convicted respondent – Following his conviction, respondent was dismissed from service and further departmental proceedings were kept in abeyance – Appellate Court, however, reversed Judgment of trial Court and acquitted the respondent by its Judgment – Consequent upon the respondents acquittal, the appellants have set-aside the order of dismissal on 4-2-2004 – Disciplinary proceedings were revived and the respondent was continued under suspension – Enquiry Committee was reconstituted and before conclusion of enquiry proceedings, respondent attained the age of superannuation on 30-4-2004. However, to facilitate the completion of enquiry, respondent was put on deemed continuance in service without salary/subsistence allowance – Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 11-9-2004 – Held, moreover, as rightly observed by the learned single Judge, disciplinary authority has not forfeited the right of respondent to encash the Privilege Leave – Thus, neither under Regulations nor under the order of the disciplinary authority, the respondent is deprived of his right to encash the Privilege Leave – Before concluding, here is an icing on the cake! Almost at the fag end of the hearing, learned counsel for the respondent placed before us letter of Deputy Chief Executive of the Indian Banks Association wherein it was stated that based on various representations received from banks, decisions of Courts, that of the Government of India, and the HR Committee, Managing Committee at its meeting held on accepted the recommendations of the HR Committee and decided to permit encashment of Privilege Leave by the compulsorily retired employees/officers – This decision of Indian Banks Association was approved by Board of appellant No.1 bank in its Fourth Meeting held – When this material was placed before us, we have called upon appellant No.2 to explain their conduct in contesting the appeal, and he has sought to justify the same based on an earlier Circular as per which compulsorily retired employees were held not entitled for leave encashment and that when the punishment of compulsory retirement was imposed on the respondent said Circular was in force – Though in stricto sensu the benefit of Boards Resolution cannot be made applicable to respondent, what is pertinent is that Indian Banks Association has yielded to the preponderance of the judicial opinion on interpretation of Regulation 38 of Service Regulations and veered round to the reality that Regulations do not deny a compulsorily retired employee of his right to encash Privilege Leave – Thus, our view derives strength from the afore-mentioned decision of Indian Banks Association and also the Resolution of the Board of Directors of appellant No.1 – Appeal is dismissed.(Paras 17, 18 and 19)
C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved by order dated 18-4-2016 in W.P. No. 32950 of 2010, this appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is preferred by the Andhra Bank and its functionaries, the respondents in the said Writ Petition.
2. The backdrop in which this appeal arises is briefly stated hereunder:
The respondent was a Scale-III Officer in appellant No.1-Bank. A departmental enquiry was instituted against the respondent into his conduct in sanction and disbursal of certain OCC limits, housing loans and car loans. Charges were framed against the respondent and an Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer were appointed. Pending the enquiry, the respondent was also placed under suspension. In parallel, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has prosecuted the respondent. By Judgment dated 16-6-2001, the II Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, convicted the respondent. Following his conviction, the respondent was dismissed from service and further departmental proceedings were kept in abeyance. The appellate Court, however, reversed the Judgment of the trial Court and acquitted the respondent by its Judgment dated 7-10-2003. Consequent upon the respondents acquittal, the appellants have set-aside the order of dismissal on 4-2-2004. The disciplinary proceedings were revived and the respondent was continued under suspension. The Enquiry Committee was reconstituted and before conclusion of the enquiry proceedings, the respondent attained the age of superannuation on 30-4-2004. However, to facilitate the completion of enquiry, the respondent was put on deemed continuance in service without salary/subsistence allowance. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 11-9-2004. After calling for the explanation of the respondent and considering the same, the disciplinary authority passed the final order of compulsory retirement from service in terms of Regulation 4(h) of Andhra Bank Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1981 (for short, the Discipline and Appeal Regulations). It was further ordered that the entire period of suspension be treated as Not on Duty and that the respondent is not entitled for any difference of salary or other service benefits including increments, if any, that fell due during the period of suspension, except the subsistence allowanced already paid to him. However, the entire period of suspension was directed to be treated as continuous service for the limited purpose of pension, if the respondent is a pension optee.
Post compulsory retirement, the respondent kept on making representations to the appellants for encashment of privilege leave, which got accumulated as on 30-4-2004. More than four years after the respondent made his first representation in this regard, the Assistant General Manager (HR) of appellant No.1-Bank replied with reference to various grievances made by the respondent, including the request for leave encashment. As the present case is confined only to the grievance relating to leave encashment, it is not necessary for us to refer to the contents of the reply on aspects other than leave encashment.
The respondents request for leave encashment was rejected on the following reasoning:
With regard to your grievance of non payment of Leave Salary on your compulsory retirement, it may please be noted that an officer whose services are terminated or who is compulsorily retired as a measure of punishment, will not be entitled to leave encashment.
Feeling aggrieved by the said rejection, the petitioner filed W.P.No.32950 of 2016. A learned single Judge of this Court allowed the said Writ Petition and aggrieved thereby, the appellants filed this appeal.
3. Dr. K. Lakshmi Narasimha, learned Counsel for the appellants, submitted that the respondent has suffered the penalty of compulsory retirement and therefore such retirement has brought an end to his employment which amounts to termination and hence he is not entitled to the benefit of leave encashment
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
