The central legal point established in the judgment is the discretion of the authority to grant compassionate allowance under Regulation 31 of the Bank's Regulation, considering the nature of the misconduct and the absence of extenuating factors.

JUDGMENT

B.K. NAYAK, J.

The Petitioner in this Writ Petition challenges the Order Dated 07.06.2011 under Annexure-1 passed by the Zonal Manager, Bank of India, Orissa Zone rejecting the Petitioner's application for grant of compassionate allowance.

2. The Petitioner was appointed initially as a part time sweeper on 23.05.1973 at Basta Branch of Bank of India & subsequently got promoted to the post of Daftary. For committing fraud on the bank the Petitioner was prosecuted under Sections 468/419/420 of the I.P.C. in G.R. Case No. 1049 of 1982 in the Court of Learned J.M.F.C., Balasore & was convicted & sentenced to R.I. for three years for the said offence by Judgment dated 26.08.1987; After initiation of prosecution he had been placed under suspension. On his conviction, the Petitioner was dismissed from service with effect from 26.08.1987 as per the Bank's Regulation. The Petitioner challenged the order of conviction in Criminal Appeal No. 60 of 1984, which was allowed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Balasore by Judgment dated 14.03.1989 & the Petitioner was acquitted of the charges. After his acquittal in appeal, the Bank initiated a disciplinary proceeding against him & issued charge-sheet-cum suspension order suspending him with effect from 12.12.1982. In the disciplinary proceeding, he was found guilty & was dismissed from service by Order Dated 11.05.1991. The Petitioner preferred an appeal challenging the order of dismissal & the Appellate authority by Order Dated 28.04.1995 modified the order of dismissal from service to termination of service with three months pay & allowance in lieu of notice vide Annexure-2. Aggrieved by the Appellate order of punishment the Petitioner filed OJC No. 3143 of 1997 before this Court. This Court allowed the Writ Petition by Judgment dated 15.03.2007 & directed the Opp. Parties to reinstate the Petitioner with 40% back wages & consequential benefits from the date of dismissal to the date of reinstatement.

The Opp. Parties challenged the Judgment passed in the Writ Petition by filing SLP No. 7357 of 2007 in the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The SLP was disposed of on 12.08.2009 & the Judgment of this Court was set aside & the matter was remanded for fresh disposal by this Court. On fresh hearing the Writ Petition was dismissed by Order Dated 14.03.2010 with the observation that the charges proved against the Petitioner are quite grave & the punishment of dismissal from service does not seem to be disproportionate. The Petitioner moved the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No. 1859 of 2010 challenging this Court's order, but the SLP was dismissed on 13.12.2010. Thereafter, the Petitioner approached the authority for pension/compassionate allowance under Regulation 31 of the Bank's Regulation 1995 by making a representation on 22.12.2010 vide Annexure-3. Since no prompt action was taken on his representation, the Petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(C) No. 3804 of 2011 & by Order Dated 24.02.2011 this Court directed the Bank authorities to consider & dispose of the representation of the Petitioner within a period of two months.

3. Thereafter by the impugned Order Dated 07.06.2011 (Annexure-1), the Zonal Manager of the Bank has rejected the representation of the Petitioner indicating that the Petitioner was originally governed under Bank's Contributory Provident Fund Regulations & has received full amount of CPF on 25.06.2000 & that he has never exercised his option for pension after coming into force of the Bank of India Employees’ Pension Regulations, 1995 &, therefore, the Petitioner was not entitled to any pension.

So far as the prayer for grant of compassionate allowance is concerned, the authority observed in the impugned order that the charges against the Petitioner were very serious in nature involving fraud, forgery, misappropriation, theft of CANPAD & his punishment was upheld by this High Court & also the Supreme Court & therefore, he does not deserve special consideration for sanction of comp