An employee removed from service due to misconduct is entitled to superannuation benefits as per Bipartite Settlement, despite delays, which justifies additional interest on unpaid dues.

JUDGMENT :

Kardak Ete, J.

Heard Mr. A. Dasgupta, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. B. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P.C. Goswami, learned counsel for all the respondents.

2. By instituting this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondent authorities to pay the retirement benefits like gratuity, pension, leave encashment, etc.

3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he initially joined as a Clerk in the UCO Bank on 29.11.1971. Thereafter, he was promoted to Junior Management Grade-I in 1980 and then, to the Middle Management Grade-II in the year 1997. While the petitioner was serving as the Middle Management Grade-II Officer and posted as Manager of Rangia Branch of the said Bank, vide order dated 25.08.2007, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner to explain as to why disciplinary action should not be initiated against him for certain irregularities. It is alleged that despite transfer from Rangia Branch to Rajgarh Road Branch and being relieved, continued to work as Manager and irregularly sanctioned some loans by violating the Bank’s guidelines, thereby, exposing the Bank to serious financial risks. The details of the irregularities in disbursing loans were annexed with the show cause notice. The petitioner filed his response to the said show cause notice. Thereafter, the petitioner was placed under suspension, contemplating departmental proceedings.

4. The memorandum containing Article of Charges and statement of allegations was issued and served to the petitioner and after due process, the departmental enquiry commenced and on 20.02.2008, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report. The copy of the enquiry report was furnished to the petitioner to which the petitioner filed his reply.

5. On the basis of the enquiry report, the disciplinary authority vide order dated 28.03.2008, imposed the penalty of dismissal from service which would be disqualification for future employment and other penalties against the respective charges, against the petitioner. The petitioner filed a statutory appeal on 09.05.2008. The petitioner has approached this Court by filing WP(C) No.4798/2008. This Court, vide order dated 07.08.2025, disposed of the said writ petition with a direction to the appellate authority to consider and dispose of the appeal and pass reasoned order. Accordingly, the appellate authority, vide order dated 28.09.2025, has disposed of the appeal, modifying the order from dismissal from service to removal from service which shall not be disqualification for future employment and other penalties against each of the charges including recovery of Rs.9,00,000/- (Rupees nine lakh) only, from the petitioner.

6. Mr. A. Dasgupta, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that although the petitioner has initially challenged the order of removal from service and recovery of Rs.9,00,000/- (Rupees nine lakh) only, from the petitioner and for the grant of retiral benefits including gratuity, pension, leave encashment, etc., now grievance is only for payment of retiral benefits in terms of the judgment and order of this Court dated 01.05.2025, in WP(C) No.5939/2014 ( Sailendra Nath Kakati vs. the UCO Bank and others ). He submits that the case of Sailendra Nath Kakati (Supra) squarely covers the case of the petitioner. Therefore, similar relief may be granted to the petitioner.

7. Mr. P.C. Goswami, learned counsel for the respondent Bank fairly submits that the judgment of Sailendra Nath Kakati (Supra), relied by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would cover the case of the present