IMPORTANT POINT
Compliance with employment regulations, authority of the disciplinary manager, and the petitioner's failure to represent his case and claim his dues were crucial in determining the outcome of the case.

ORDER

Chandra Dhari Singh, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, praying for the following reliefs:

"(i)That this Hon'ble Court kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order passed by respondent No.3 dated 19.01.1998 or modified & dated 27.04.2023 also be quashed and to pass the directions against the respondents to grant the entire retiral benefits out of his service period from 07.12.1972 to 19.01.1998 accordingly pension, gratuity, PF leave encashment be given to petitioner alongwith arrears with 18% interest and compensation.

(ii) That the respondents also be directed to release the entire amount alongwith 18% interest to petitioner as agreed by respondent No.3 ill impugned letter dated 27.04.2023, in interest of justice.

(iii) That the respondents also be directed that cost and compensation also be awarded to petitioner or any fit and proper directions also be passed as Hon'ble Court think fit and proper, in interest of justice".

2. The brief facts pertaining to petition are reproduced herein:

a) The petitioner was employed with the Bank of India i.e., respondent no.2 at the post of clerk at the Jamshedpur Branch, Bihar. The employment tenure of the petitioner commenced from 7th December, 1972 and on 16th September, 1981, the petitioner was promoted in Office Category.

b) Further, vide termination letter dated 19th January, 1998, issued by the Deputy Zonal Manager, the petitioner was dismissed from service on the grounds of unauthorised absenteeism from 17th January, 1996 to 24th January, 1996 and then again from 17th February, 1996 to 29th March 1996.

c) As per the aforesaid major penalty chargesheet order, penalty proceedings had been initiated against the petitioner by issuing Articles of Charge dated 28th May, 1997. The concerned authority issuing the penalty order found the written statement submitted by the petitioner to be unsatisfactory, as a result of which an enquiry was instituted.

d) In the report dated 29th November, 1997, submitted by the Inquiring Authority, the charges alleged against the petitioner stood proven and the said inquiry report was furnished to the petitioner as well, calling forth his representation on the inquiry findings within ten days from the date of receipt. However, no representation was made by the petitioner.

e) The petitioner preferred an appeal dated 25th March, 2000 against the said penalty order to Executive Director, however the same is alleged by the respondent no.2 that it was never delivered its office.

f) The petitioner made representations dated 9th January, 2000 and 20th June 2000 to the respondent no, 2, thereby, seeking retrial benefit. The said representation dated 9th January, 2000 to was replied by the respondent no. 3 vide reply dated 26th June, 2000 wherein the respondent no. 2 stated that the representation of the petitioner was replied vide order dated 5th February, 2000 at the address with the respondent vide registered post which was returned undelivered with the remark "Left".

g) On 7th January, 2022, the petitioner made a last attempt to seek his retrial benefits, by making representations to respondent no. 2 and 3, however, no action has been taken by the respondents.

h) Pursuant to which, on 2nd February, 2023, the petitioner filed a writ petition bearing No. WP(C) 2532/2023 before the Coordinate Bench of this Court, which was disposed of vide order dated 28th February, 2023, with directions to the respondent to treat the writ petition as a representation and decide the same within six weeks from the date of the order by passing a reasoned/speaking order.

i) In compliance with the directions of the aforesaid order, the respondent no.3 served letter dated 27th April, 2023 upon the petitioner, whereby, it was communicated to the petitioner that during the course of his employment, the petitioner had availed three loans from the bank and the same remain unclosed and in addition to the loans, the petitioner and his wife had availed certai