JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Ms. P. Chakraborty, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. S. Dutta, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Sidhant Dutta, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the erstwhile United Bank of India, presently known as Punjab National Bank.

2. Both the writ petitions are taken up together for disposal taking into account that the facts involved therein are interlinked and the question of law is paramateria.

3. A perusal of both the writ petitions reveals that 40 numbers of borrowers of United Bank of India, Rajabazar Jaipur Branch had tendered withdrawal slip for withdrawing money from their respective Savings Bank Accounts after credit of the closure proceeds of their related Re-investment Plan. The related Re-investment Plan Savings Bank Accounts (RIP) were opened for Rs.10,000/-and at the time of disbursement of 40 numbers of agricultural loan proposals for Rs.30,690/-each. The said Loan Accounts were closed under the “Agricultural Debt Relief Scheme, 2008” whereby instead of paying the full amount written on the withdrawal slips of the related account holders, Rs.6,000/-each was paid each and the remaining amount was alleged to have been retained and shared amongst the petitioners herein in both the writ petitions along with another.

4. It is further seen from the records that the total aggregate payable amount was Rs.4,61,867/-, out of which Rs.2,40,000/-were paid to the account holders. On the ground that the petitioners in both the writ petitions along with another had misappropriated the amount of Rs.2,21,867/-; the petitioners in both the petitions were issued charge-sheets.

5. It is relevant to take note of that the petitioner in WP(C) No.1657/2013 was alleged to have misappropriated an amount of Rs.66,557/-whereas the petitioner in WP(C) No.3784/2013 was alleged to have misappropriated an amount of Rs.44,380/-. It was also alleged in the charge-sheet that the petitioner in WP(C) No.1657/2013, upon being detected, deposited an amount of Rs.60,512/-; Rs.512/-and Rs.6,045/-on 04.07.2009; 03.11.2009 and 07.11.2009 respectively. In the same vein, the petitioner in WP(C) No.3784/2013 was also alleged to have deposited/returned the amount of Rs.12,000/-; Rs.28,350/-and Rs.4,030/-on 26.09.2009; 03.11.2009 and 09.11.2009 respectively. Although in the writ petition WP(C) No.1657/2013, the statement of defence has not been enclosed, but from a perusal of the statement of defence of the petitioner in WP(C) No.3784/2013 enclosed as Annexure-5 to the said writ petition, the petitioner had denied that he was involved in any misappropriation of money and that he had returned the said amount. However, the Annexure-I series enclosed to the writ petition in WP(C) No.3784/2013, speaks otherwise.

6. Be that as it may, separate departmental enquiries were held against the petitioners in both the writ petitions and the enquiry reports so submitted found that all the charges leveled against the petitioners vide the charge-sheets in question were proved. It further appears from the records that pursuant to the submission of the enquiry reports, the petitioners in both the writ petitions were given opportunities to show cause as regards the acceptance of the enquiry reports and the petitioners duly submitted their replies respectively. It further appears that the petitioners in both the writ petitions were imposed the major penalties of “Discharged from service with superannuation benefits, i.e., Pension and/or Provident Fund and Gratuity as would be due otherwise under the Rules or Regulations prevailing at the relevant time and without disqualification from future employment”. This punishment was so imposed in terms with Clause 6 (d) of the Biparte Memorandum of Settlement dated 10.04.2002. It further appears from a perusal of the records in WP(C) No.1687/2013 that an Appeal was preferred by the petitioner in the said writ petition before the Appellate Authority and vide an order dated 26.06.2012, the sai