ORDER

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following reliefs :-

i) To call for the original record pertaining to enquiry proceedings;

ii) To declare the order dated 23.8.2013 (P/9) as null and void as rules have been adopted from retrospective date.

iii) To quash the impugned punishment order dated 5.2.2014 (annexure P/11) by which punishment of censure has been imposed.

iv) To quash the impugned order dated 18.1.2014 (annexure P/12) by which the General Manager mentioned himself as Anushashanik Pradhikari;

v) To quash the charge-sheet and all consequential action of respondents.

vi) To grant interest on the amount, which was deprived by the respondent along with retiral dues.

vii) To award cost of the petition.

viii) To give any other writ, order, direction which this Court feel just and proper in the given or changed circumstances.

2. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner stood retired w.e.f. afternoon of 31.3.2013 and, therefore, he has sought instructions from the petitioner as to whether he would like to press this petition or not. It is submitted that the petitioner has instructed him to press relief No.7.6 only.

3. Accordingly, he seeks permission to withdraw this petition so far as it relates to reliefs No.7.1 to 7.5, 7.7 and 7.8.

4. In view of the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner, the relief sought by the petitioner in clause 7.1 to 7.5, 7.7. and 7.8 is hereby dismissed.

5. It is the case of the petitioner that although the petitioner had retired on 31.3.3013 but the bankers’ cheque of his gratuity amount and leave encashment amount totaling Rs.13,79,013.20/- was issued on 26.2.2014, therefore, the petitioner was paid his legitimate dues with delay of 331 days. Thus, he is entitled for interest over the same.

6. The respondents have filed their return and it is submitted that in the departmental enquiry which was initiated just prior to retirement of the petitioner, the petitioner was awarded censure. It is submitted that the respondent Bank was legally justified in withholding the retiral dues of the petitioner from the date of retirement i.e. 31.3.2013 till 25.2.2014 because as per section 45 of the Service Regulations, 2012, the Bank has a right to withhold the retiral dues of the delinquent employee till a final decision is taken in the case of misconduct. The said power to withhold the retiral dues was communicated to the petitioner vide notice dated 11.3.2013 at the time of serving of the charge-sheet. The impugned order of censure dated 18.1.2014 was communicated to the petitioner by covering letter dated 25.2.2014 and on the very next date, i.e. 26.2.2014 the retiral dues of the petitioner were approved by the respondents Bank and accordingly withholding of retiral dues of the petitioner was not the malafide action of the Bank but it was legitimately permissible under the Regulations.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

8. In order to award interest this Court is required to decide as to whether withholding of the legitimate amount was on account of any malafide on the part of the respondents or not.

9. The undisputed facts are that the petitioner stood retired on 31.3.2013 whereas the departmental enquiry was initiated on 11.3.2013, i.e. just 19 days prior to his date of retirement and the order of censure was passed on 5.2.2014 which was communicated to the petitioner by order dated 25.2.2014. By letter dated 11.3.2013 the petitioner was also informed that as per section 45 of the Bank Regulations he shall not be entitled to any amount except the CPF and it was also specifically informed to the petitioner that the leave encashment and gratuity amount can be withheld till the final order is passed. Thus, it is clear that the act of withholding of gratuity and leave encashment amount by the Bank was in accordance with section 45 of the Central M.P. Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations, 2