Accumulated privilege leave constitutes a vested property right of an employee. Consequently, in the absence of an explicit statutory provision, an employer cannot deny encashment of such leave upon the dismissal of an employee from service for misconduct.

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER BEARING NO.HO: HRW:IR: 25/ 2019-20 DATED 16.05.2019 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT MARKED AT ANNEXURE-F. ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT TO PAY THE PROCEEDS OF LEAVE ENCASHMENT TO THE EXTENT OF LEAVE BALANCE ALONG WITH INTEREST AT 12% FROM THE DATE OF DISMISSAL TO TILL THE DATE OF PAYMENT FLOWING FROM QUASHING OF THE ABOVE ORDER AND ETC.,

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

ORAL ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)

1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayer:

A. Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the order bearing no.HO: HRW:IR: 25/ 2019-20 dated 16.05.2019 passed by the respondent marked at Annexure-F.

B. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to pay the proceeds of leave encashment to the extent of leave balance along with interest at 12% from the date of dismissal to till the date of payment flowing from quashing of the above order.

C. Issue such other Writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble court deems fit to grant, in the interest of justice and equity, including the award of costs of this writ petition.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is similarly situated as the petitioner in Writ Petition No.100339 of 2025. The said writ petition was allowed by directing payment of encashment of privilege leave notwithstanding the dismissal of the employee from service. This Court, in the said writ petition, has held as follows:

“THE ISSUE:

The issue that needs an answer in the case at hand is, whether an employee who is imposed a penalty of dismissal from service is entitled to grant of encashment of privilege leave.

2. Heard the learned counsel Sri.Naganagouda M. Patil, appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel Sri. M.G.Kulkarni, appearing for the respondent.

3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows:

The petitioner joins the service of the respondent - Pragathi Krishna Gramin Bank (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Bank’, for short) and works as an Assistant Manager in various branches of the Bank. It transpires that on 31.03.2012, the Bank initiates disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner alleging certain misconduct by issuance of a charge-sheet. The enquiry conducted against the petitioner leads to imposition of penalty of dismissal from service with effect from 19.12.2014. The petitioner represents to the Bank seeking payment of his terminal benefits with particular reference to leave encashment. The said leave encashment that was accrued during the service of the petitioner for about 220 days, is denied on the ground that the petitioner has been dismissed from service, on account of misconduct and therefore, the Pragathi Krishna Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations, 2013 (for short ‘the Regulations’), would not permit payment of leave encashment to an employee, who has been dismissed from service. It is therefore, the petitioner is at the doors of this Court in the subject petition.

4. Sans details, facts in brief, are as follows:

The petitioner joins the service of the erstwhile Thungabhadra Gramina Bank on 23.05.1983 and has held several positions in the bank. During his service, alleging certain misconduct, the bank initiates disciplinary proceedings. An enquiry officer was appointed to conduct an enquiry and he holds that the petitioner is guilty of the allegations. Based upon the findings of the enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority imposes a penalty of dismissal from service, in terms o