JUDGMENT :

ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J.

1. Heard Mr. Sahdeo Choudhary, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

2. Heard Mr. A. Allam, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents along with Mr. A.K. Sahay, Advocate.

3. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:

“For issuance of nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondent authorities and further be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to (i) refund of illegal recovery of Rs. 6.00 lacs from gratuity amount, (ii) make payment of admissible arrear amount of gratuity of Rs. 20,676,.92 on account of key allowances @ 1280/- per month, but the same could not be taken into account while calculating the gratuity amount, (iii) make payment of admissible leave encashment on account of privilege leave accrued to him and (iv) make payment of statutory interest on amount of gratuity as well as other terminal benefits for delayed payment.

Further prayer has been made to set aside/quash the office Memo No. SD/85/16-17 dated 19.09.2016 issued by the respondent No. 3 (Annexure-4) and Office Memo No. JGB/RO/HR/RK/2017-18/887 dated 23.08.2017 issued by the respondent No. 2 (Annexure-9) whereby and where under the respondent authorities have informed the petitioner for recovery of Rs. 6.00 lacs from gratuity amount.”

Arguments of the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order of punishment in the departmental proceeding was passed against the petitioner vide order dated 06.12.2012 as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition wherein a major penalty of “Removal from Bank’s Service which shall not be disqualification for future employment” under Regulation No. 39.2 (b) of Jharkhand Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations, 2010 has been passed.

5. He submits that the arising out of the disciplinary proceeding, the order of penalty as well as appellate order is under challenge before this court in W.P. (S) No. 197 of 2014 which is still pending before this court.

6. The learned counsel further submits that the cause of action for filing the present writ petition arose when the respondents issued a communication dated 19/09/16 along with statutory Form-L i.e. notice for payment of gratuity dated 08.08.2016 under clause-1 of sub Rule 8 of Payment of Gratuity Rules, 1972 wherein the amount payable on account of gratuity has been shown as Rs. 7,02,742.22 in form L and vide covering letter dated 19.09.2016 it has been mentioned that an amount of Rs. 6 lacs is to be deducted from gratuity and the remaining amount was deposited in the account of the petitioner after deducting Rs. 6 lacs. He submits that even the last pay drawn was not properly projected in the calculation of gratuity and thus there are serious disputes in connection with the entitlement and computation of gratuity.

7. The learned counsel submits that against the deduction of the amount of Rs. 6 lakhs and also anomaly in the entitlement and computation of gratuity, the petitioner had filed two representations both dated 30.05.2017 as contained in Annexure-5 and 6 of the writ petition and had stated that allowance payable to the petitioner being the head cashier at the relevant point of time was not included in the calculation of last pay drawn. The petitioner also raised objection with regard to recovery of Rs. 6 lacs from his terminal gratuity amount as the penalty order in the departmental proceedings did not direct recovery of any such amount. It was also contended in his representation dated 30.05.2017 that deduction of Rs. 6 lacs on account of his punishment in the departmental proceedings will amount to double jeopardy. Certain other objections have also been raised in connection with deduction of the amount of Rs. 6 lacs from the gratuity payable to the petitioner.

8. It further appears from the writ record that the representation in connection with deduction of gratuity of Rs. 6 lakhs has been disposed of vide order dated 23.08.201