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 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, 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 encashment is the subject matter.

Regulation 67 refers to retirement and there is no specific words like retirement compulsorily as a measure of penalty or in the normal course retirement after completion of age of superannuation. In this regard learned counsel for the appellant is hereby directed to get instruction.

Relist this matter on 15.12.2022.”

4. Today learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that having regard to the imposition of penalty of compulsory retirement under Regulation No. 39 of Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations, 2010 (for short Regulations, 2010). Respondent is not entitled to relief sought in the writ petition.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that Regulation No. 2(a) deals with “Act” means the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976 (21 of 1976). Further, he has pointed out Regulation No. 39(b) under explanation 2(i) proviso to contain that competent authority is empower to imposition of penalty.

Further, he has pointed out Regulation No. 45.

6. Regulation No. 45 Reads as under:-

45. Disciplinary proceedings after retirement, - (1)

An officer or employee who is under suspension on a charge of misconduct and who attains the age of superannuation, shall be deemed to be in service even after the age of superannuation for the specific purpose of continuation and conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings and issue of final orders thereon.

(2) The officer or employee who is under suspension shall not be eligible for any subsistence allowance for the period beyond the date of superannuation.

(3) The officer or employee against whom disciplinary proceeding has been initiated shall cease to be in service on the date of superannuation but the disciplinary shall continue as if he was in service until the proceedings are concluded and final order is passed in respect thereof.

(4) The officer or employee against whom disciplinary proceedings has 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 pro