THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI WRIT PETITION No.994 of 2023

ORDER

This Writ Petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the impugned order dated 15.12.2022 as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to direct the respondents to pay the amount of leave encashment of the unavailed privilege leave of 240 days that was to the credit of the petitioner as on the date of his compulsory retirement, together with interest @ 10% per annum from the date of compulsory retirement i.e., on 15.03.2014 and also to pay the amount of Rs.8,03,000/- which has been withheld by the respondents from the total amount of gratuity payable as per the Gratuity Act with interest at the rate of 10% from the date of such illegal withholding and to pass such other order or orders.

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are that on certain allegations of financial irregularities committed by the petitioner, the petitioner was imposed with the punishment of compulsory retirement vide orders dated 15.03.2014 and as the petitioner did not challenge the said order, it has become final. It is submitted that the petitioner, thereafter, has made a request for encashment of his earned leave and also for payment of gratuity to him. When the same was not considered by the respondents, the petitioner filed W.P.No.25920 of 2022 and this Court, vide order dated 29.12.2022, directed the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner and to pass appropriate orders thereon within a time frame. The respondents have thereafter issued a show cause notice dated 29.11.2022 and passed the impugned order dated 15.12.2022 rejecting the request of the petitioner for encashment of leave and also for payment of the entire gratuity and for not withholding a sum of Rs.8,03,000/-. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition is filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents have not complied with the directions of this Court dated 29.12.2022 in W.P.No.25920 of 2022 in its true letter and spirit and have issued a show cause notice, without giving details as to how the petitioner is not eligible for encashment of earned leave in view of the penalty of compulsory retirement imposed on him, and also as to how the loss of Rs.8,00,109/- has been incurred by the bank on account of the alleged financial irregularities committed by the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner has given a detailed explanation to the respondents with regard to each of the issues raised in the show cause notice dated 29.11.2022 but the respondents without referring to any of them have summarily rejected the request of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of compulsory retirement did not refer to any forfeiture of the encashment of privilege leave and that the said issue is also covered by the judgment of the Division Bench of this court in W.A.No.502 of 2016 dated 12.08.2016 in respect of the amount withheld from the gratuity payable to the petitioner. Since the respondents have not followed the principles of natural justice and have not given particulars as to how financial loss has been arrived at, the respondents could not have withheld the same.

4. Dr. K. Lakshmi Narasimha, learned Standing Counsel however relied upon the averments made in the counter affidavit and submitted that the petitioner is not eligible for leave encashment and also the gratuity which has been withheld. He submitted that the authorities have brought out as to how the bank has incurred the loss of Rs.8,00,109/- and therefore the gratuity and leave encashment have been rightly withheld.

5. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court finds that on the issue of entitlement of encashment of earned leave by an employee who has been compulsorily retired from the service, the Division Bench of this Court has already considered the same in W.