SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J. :

Rule, returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the contesting parties, heard finally.

2. Whether the petitioners, out of whom one i.e. petitioner No. 3 has been removed from service, while the remaining two have been compulsorily retired by way of punishment after holding disciplinary proceedings against them, are entitled to get encashment of their privilege leave, is the question for determination in this writ petition.

3. The petitioners were the employees of Maharashtra Gramin Bank, Aurangabad (“the Bank”, for short). They were subjected to disciplinary proceedings on account of certain allegations made against them. They were found guilty of the charges levelled against them and resultantly, one of the petitioners was penalized with the removal from service, while the remaining two were compulsorily retired. The petitioners applied to respondent No. 3 – the President of the Bank for grant of privilege leave encashment that was standing to their credit. Their claims for leave encashment came to be turned down by respondent No. 3 on the ground that their services have come to an end by way of punishment i.e. termination/comp