Purnendu Singh, J.—Heard Mr. Gyan Prakash, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Prabhakar Jha, learned counsel for the Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank.

2. Petitioner is aggrieved for non-payment of gratuity and leave encashment and for entitlement of the same he has filed the present writ petition for following relief(s):—

“I. For issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing letter No. HO/DAD/10/17-18/No.272 dated 25.09.2017 issued by the General Manager, Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank, Muzaffarpur by which he has denied the payment of amount of petitioner’s gratuity and earn leave holding him vicariously liable in the capacity of Branch Manager for having financial loss to the Bank, which is not only contrary to the punishment order dated 04.01.2012, Dismissal from Bank Service which shall ordinary be a disqualification for future employment in terms of Regulation 39(1)(b)(v) of Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank (Officers & Employees) Service Regulation, 2010 but also against the principle of nemo debet bis vexari and audi alterum partem.

II. For holding that once the Bank has awarded punishment to the petition through a departmental proceeding under Regulation 39(1) (b)(v) of Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank (Officers & Employees) Service Regulation, 2010 which is Dismissal from Bank service which shall ordinary be disqualification for future employment as the Disciplinary Authority or the Appellate Authority could not found any pecuniary loss to the Bank caused by the petitioner and now the General Manager of the Bank subsequently can not award any other punishment contrary to the punishment awarded by the Disciplinary Authority and affirmed by the Appellate Authority which amounts to violation of Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India.

III. For issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing letter No. TBC/08/2015-16/281 dated 14.05.2015 issued by the Senior Manager, Post Retiral Benefit Department, Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank, Muzaffarpur wherein he hold that petitioner is not entitled for earn leave within the provision of Regulation 67 of Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank (Officers & Employees) Service Regulation, 2010.

IV. For issuance of order(s), direction (s) commanding the Respondents to make payment of amount of gratuity and earn leave as in departmental proceeding petitioner has not been punished for any pecuniary loss to the Bank by the Disciplinary Authority or by the Appellate Authority.

V. For any other reliefs for which the petitioner may find entitle to in the facts of the case.”

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner informs this Court that the petitioner had earlier filed CWJC No. 8748 of 2014 in which he had sought following relief(s):—

"1. .... Direction/directions to the Respondents to make payment of Gratuity amount which has been withheld by the respondents without any rhyme or reason and also for passing a fresh order in the light of representation dated 30.01.2014 of the petitioner in which a representation he has clearly shown that utter discrimination has been mated out to him by the respondents."

4. While disposing of the said writ petition, this Court had made following observation:—

“8. In that view of the matter, this Court would find it difficult now to direct the authorities of the Bank to reconsider the representation of the petitioner which has already been rejected. Such action of the Bank in fact will never be interfered by this Court specially when the parties are bound by the interparte judgment as recorded above.

9. That would leave this Court to decide the issue of payment of Gratuity.

10. The submission of Mr. Roy in this regard is that even if the order of punishment, by way of dismissal of the petitioner from the service of the Bank, was passed that did not authorize the Bank to even deny the petitioner to pay amount of Gratuity. Learned counsel for the Bank, however, has referred to specific provision in the service rule of the Bank wherein it has been clearly laid down that in