Disciplinary penalties must have clear allegations of pecuniary loss; otherwise, recovery from gratuity violates service regulations.

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI)

Date : 02-02-2026 Since both the appeals challenge the final judgment passed in C.W.J.C No. 14867 of 2015, we have heard both the appeals analogously. We are now Going to pass the following judgement.

2. The appellant of L.P.A. No. 886 of 2024 filed C.W.J.C. No. 14867 of 2015 for following reliefs:-

(i) Issuance of an order, direction or writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the order dated 19.10.2013 contained in HO/DAD/06/13-14/No 525 as well as consequential administrative order dated 19.10.2013 contained in HO/DAD/06/13- 14/No 526, by which the disciplinary authority has awarded the penalty of recovery of Rs. 1442454/- (fourteen lakh forty two thousand four hundred fifty four) only, from the amount of gratuity and leave enchashment, payable to the petitioner, as a part of pecuniary of loss of Rs. 2116251/- only caused to the Bank by the petitioner in terms of Regulation 39(I) (a) (iv) of Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank (Officers & Employees)

Services Regulation, 2010.

(ii) Issuance of an order, direction or writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the appellate order dated 04.03.2014 contained in letter no. HO/DAD/06/13-14/838, whereby and where under petitioner’s appeal dated 25.11.2013 against the order of Disciplinary Authority has been upheld.

(iii) Issuance of an order, direction or writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondent authorities to refund the amount of gratuity payable to the petitioner.

(iv) Any other relief or reliefs to which the petitioners may be found entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the case.

3. The Hon’ble Single Judge disposed of the above-

mentioned writ petition vide an order dated 11th March, 2024 by passing the following order:-

10. I have gone through the entire records and it was found that in the memo of charge no pecuniary loss was mentioned and the authority concerned has passed the order by which the recovery has been ordered from the amount of gratuity and leave encashment of the petitioner. It appears that the authority concerned without appreciating the fact, the pecuniary loss was not the subject matter of the present proceeding and no pecuniary loss was mentioned in the memo of charge passed the order of recovery.

11. In view of the aforesaid the order dated 19.10.2013 (Annexure-11) and 04.03.2014 (Annexure-13) are set aside and the respondent-bank is directed to pay all the consequential benefits to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of the receipt/production of the copy of the order.

12. The writ petition is allowed.

4. The writ petitioner has preferred L.P.A. No. 886 of

2024 on the ground that while disposing of the writ petition, the Hon’ble Single Judge directed the respondent-bank to pay all consequential benefits to the appellant/petitioner but no order was passed for payment of interest despite the fact fact that the benefits were illegally withheld for a period of eleven years.

5. The respondent, namely. Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank filed L.P.A. No. 699 of 2024 assailing the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge.

6. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties at length. It is found from the documents filed in the writ petition that when the appellant/petitioner was posted as a Branch Manager of the respondent-bank, he was directed to file reply to the show cause notice dated 2^nd July, 2010 regarding financial irregularities in contrasting a building spending approximately a sum of Rs. 35 lakhs. The appellant/petitioner submitted a reply on 7^th July, 2010 denying all such allegations. It was also submitted by him that he constructed a residential house at Haribatikachowk, Bettiah in the