Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(Pat) 6322
PATNA HIGH COURT
Mr. Justice Arun Kumar Jha
Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank – Appellant
Versus
Atmesh Kumar Roy – Respondent
L.P.A/33/2021
An employee who has been compulsorily retired as a measure of penalty is entitled to all retiral benefits, including leave encashment, as if he had retired on age of superannuation.
Headnote:
COMPULSORY RETIREMENT - LEAVE ENCASHMENT - ENTITLEMENT - DAKSHIN BIHAR GRAMIN BANK (OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES) SERVICE REGULATIONS, 2010- Regulation 45(4) of the Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations, 2010 (Regulations, 2010) provides that an employee against whom disciplinary proceedings have been initiated shall not receive any pay and/or allowances after the date of superannuation and also not be entitled for the payment of retirement benefits till the proceeding is completed and final order is passed thereon except his own contribution to Contributory Provident Fund (CPF).- Explanation to Regulation 45 states that for the purposes of this regulation, the normal retirement benefits such as encashment of privilege leave and Gratuity may be withheld till the completion of the disciplinary proceeding and passing of final order by the Competent Authority and the release of benefits shall be as per the final order of the Competent Authority.- Regulation 67 of the Regulations, 2010 deals with the lapse of leave and provides that all leave shall lapse on the death of an officer or employee or if he ceases to be in the service of the Bank.- Second proviso to Regulation 67 is applicable to such of those retirees who in the ordinary course retires as and when they attain age of superannuation. The same is not attracted in so far as such an employee/officer who has been punished with the punishment of compulsory retirement as a measure of penalty under the Regulation No. 39(b) (iii).- Regulation 67 of Regulations, 2010 does not distinguish between two types of retirement, one is normal retirement and another is compulsory retirement as a measure of penalty or premature retirement on account of inefficiency.- If an employee or officer who has been retired as compulsory retirement as a measure of penalty, he is entitled to all retiral benefits as if he has retired on age of superannuation on particular date of penalty. In other words, it is premature retirement as a punishment with all service benefits including monetary benefits.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent, Atmesh Kumar Roy, was an employee of the appellant bank. He was compulsorily retired as a measure of penalty under Regulation 39(b) of the Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations, 2010 (Regulations, 2010). The respondent filed a writ petition seeking payment of leave encashment, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge. The appellant bank filed an appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that Regulation 45(4) of the Regulations, 2010 does not provide for withholding of leave encashment as a measure of penalty. The Court further held that Regulation 67 of the Regulations, 2010 does not distinguish between normal retirement and compulsory retirement as a measure of penalty. Therefore, the respondent was entitled to leave encashment.
Issues: Whether the respondent was entitled to leave encashment after being compulsorily retired as a measure of penalty.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court relied on the following principles in reaching its decision:- Regulation 45(4) of the Regulations, 2010 does not provide for withholding of leave encashment as a measure of penalty.- Regulation 67 of the Regulations, 2010 does not distinguish between normal retirement and compulsory retirement as a measure of penalty.- Therefore, the respondent was entitled to leave encashment.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of the learned Single Judge.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.33 of 2021
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17150 of 2017
======================================================
1.
Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank through its Chairman, Board of Directors-cum-
Disciplinary Authority, Head Office at Mina Plaza, South of Museum, P.O.-
G.P.O., P.S.- Kotwali, Town and District- Patna, Now known as Dakshin
Bihar Gramin Bank, Head Office, Sri Vishnu Commercial Complex, Near
National High way Petrol Pump, Bypass N.H.- 30, Asho Chack, P.O.-
Kachuara, P.S.- Zeromile, Patna- 16.
2.
Board of Directors Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank through its Chairman
Having its Head Office at Shri Vishnu Commercial Complex, N.H.- 30, New
Bypass Near BP Highway Services Petrol Pump Asochak, Patna- 800016.
3.
The Chairman Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank (DBGB) Having its Office at
Shri Vishnu Commercial Complex, N.H.- 30, New Bypass Near BP
Highway Services Petrol Pump Asochak, Patna- 800016.
4.
The Chief Manager, Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank, Head Office at Mina
Plaza, South of Museum, P.O.- G.P.O., P.S.- Kotwali, Town and District-
Patna, Now known as Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank Head Office, Sri Vishnu
Commercial Complex, Near National High way Petrol Pump, Bypass N.H.-
30, Asho Chack, P.O.- Kachuara, P.S.- Zeromile, Patna- 16.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
Atmesh Kumar Roy Son of- Gupteshwari Charan Sinha Resident of Janakpur
Colony, P.O.- Buniadganj, P.S.- Mufasil Town, District- Gaya.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s
:
Mr. Mahesh Narayan Prabat Sr. Advocate
Mr. Praveen Prabhakar Advocate
For the Respondent/s
:
Mr. Rama Kant Singh Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI)
Date : 02-01-2023
In the instant L.P.A, appellant has assailed the order of
the learned Single Judge dated 16.09.2020 passed in C.W.J.C
Patna High Court L.P.A No.33 of 2021 dt.02-01-2023
2/7
No. 17150 of 2017. The respondent-Atmesh Kumar Roy in
C.W.J.C No. 17150 of 2017 has prayed for the following relief:-
“That the petitioner in this
writ application prays for issuance of a
writ of mandamus directing the
Respondent Bank to pay the amount
due to the petitioner against Leave
Encashment when he retired from
service on 31.07.2013 with interest of
the due amount.”
2. The learned Single Judge allowed the C.W.J.C No.
17150 of 2017 in favour of respondent- Atmesh Kumar Roy
hence, the present appeal by the Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank.
3. On 01.12.2022 the following order was passed.
“Learned counsel for the
appellant
is
hereby
directed
to apprise this Court which are the relevant
regulation
number
like procedure for imposition of major
penalty/minor
penalty,
action on the Inquiry Officer report by the
disciplinary authority. Further, is there any
provision under the disciplinary regulation,
if an employee is retired compulsorily as a
measure of penalty in that event he is not
entitled to which are the benefits. In the
present case, respondent has been retired
compulsorily as a measure of penalty, in
such an event his retirement would be
effective from the date of imposition of
compulsorily retirement penalty, in such
circumstances respondent employee is
entitled to all monetary benefits as if he has
retired on the date of imposition of penalty.
The very object of imposition of penalty of
compulsorily retirement as a measure of
penalty is to weed out his services, however,
Patna High Court L.P.A No.33 of 2021 dt.02-01-2023
3/7
he is entitled to all retiral benefits with
reference to date of imposition of penalty. In
other words, it amounts to pre-mature
retirement in that event question of
withholding or non entitlement of leave
en
