Disciplinary proceedings against bank employees must adhere to established regulations, and decisions upheld by the appellate authority are not subject to re-evaluation by the High Court unless deemed egregiously unjust.

JUDGMENT :

Supratim Bhattacharya, J.

1. The appellant has preferred this instant appeal being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order and Judgment passed in WP No. 379 of 2017 dated 13.05.2020.

2. Through the said judgment, the Ld. Court has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant herein. The Ld. Judge has been pleased to pass the following :

“ … the decision and the penalty imposed upon the petitioner appears to have been passed in accordance with the service regulations and to conformity with the principles of natural justice. There is hardly any reason to interfere with the proceedings and the final order impugned herein.”

3. The appellant herein namely Rana Majumder was the writ petitioner while the respondents herein namely Punjab National Bank (formerly United Bank of India) and others were the respondents before the writ court.

4. The fact of the instant lis is that the appellant herein was an employee serving as an officer in the United Bank of India. He was sent on deputation as the Chairman of the Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank (hereinafter referred to as BGVB) and the said person served the said bank from 20th April 2010 till 3rd of November 2012. Thereafter Mr. Majumder was repatriated to his parent bank that is the Union Bank of India and was posted as the Deputy General Manager (priority sector and recovery) at the head office of the said bank.

5. A charge-sheet was issued against the said appellant on 26.03.2004 pertaining to his tenure as the Chairman of BGVB. The appellant retired from service from the United Bank of India on 31.03.2014 on attaining his normal age of superannuation. Later another charge-sheet has been issued against the said person on 04.08.2014 relating to the charges which had cropped up against him during his tenure as the Chief Manager of the Purba Medinipur region of the United Bank of India for the period between 23.04.2005 to 15.10.2008.

6. A disciplinary proceeding was held against the petitioner and the disciplinary authority passed the final order on 07.05.2016 imposing major penalty of removal from service not being disqualified for future employment in terms of regulation 4 Clause I of the United Bank of India Officer Employees’(Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1996 with immediate effect. Order was also passed to the effect that save and except what has been paid to him on account of his own contribution to Provident Fund and Provisional Pension he will not be entitled to any other Terminal Benefits that is pension/commutation in terms of Regulation 22 read with Regulation 46 of the UBI (employees) Pension Regulations, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as Pension Regulation), gratuity in terms of Regulation 46 Clause 1 sub Clause E and encashment of accrued leave as on the date of superannuation in terms of the regulation 38 of the United Bank of India Officers Service Regulation’s, 1979(hereinafter referred to as the SERVICE REGULATIONS ).

7. Statutory appeal was preferred by the appellant challenging the said order of the disciplinary authority which stood dismissed by the appellate authority on 19.01.2017.

8. Thereafter the appellant banking upon a circular issued by the UBI on 21.07.2015 regarding entitlement of encashment of privileged leave for office employees inflicted with the punishment of the compulsory retirement, applied before the respondent authority praying for releasing his leave encashment benefit but the said prayer was rejected on 27.01.2017 by the General Manager (Human Resource) of the UBI.

9. The appellant herein being aggrieved by the order passed by the disciplinary authority and the appellate auth