HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No. 23292 OF 2016

O R D E R:

Petitioner seeks a direction to respondents to pay increments which were stopped under the order of punishment dated 31.07.1999 which was set aside by the order dated 19.12.2013 in Writ Petition No. 4965 of 2001, as affirmed by the order dated 09.06.2014 in Writ Appeal No. 704 of 2014.

2. Petitioner worked as Manager of UCO Bank in Patighanpur Branch, Medak District from 22.05.1987 till 21.02.1990. While working as such, he was imposed punishment vide order dated 31.07.1999 for the irregularities found in the branch. Challenging the said order, he filed Writ Petition No. 4965 of 2001, wherein this Court by order dated 19.12.2013, observed that principles of natural justice have not been followed and some witnesses, who were proposed to be examined by petitioner, were not examined and certain documents were not permitted to be exhibited, accordingly, set aside the penalties imposed against petitioner for various charges. It was however, made clear that respondent bank is at liberty to proceed with enquiry in accordance with Rules and Regulations by affording an opportunity to petitioner to examine the witnesses proposed by him and by permitting him to exhibit the documents which he seeks to exhibit. The bank preferred Writ Appeal No. 704 of 2014 against the said order, wherein the Division Bench dismissed the Appeal by the judgment dated 09.06.2014, upholding the order of the learned Single Judge. It is stated, petitioner submitted representations dated 08.07.2014, 06.08.2014, 17.09.2014 for payment of differential amount on account of stoppage of increments, but however, without considering the same, the bank officials proceeded to conduct fresh enquiry keeping in force the punishment of stoppage of eight increments since 31.07.1999. The bank later gave reply dated 03.09.2014 not agreeing to pay the benefits. Petitioner complaining wilful disobedience on the part of respondents in implementing the order in Writ Petition, filed Contempt Case No. 1641 of 2014. This Court closed the said case on 21.03.2016 observing that learned Single Judge has not specifically directed that increments should be restored. As per the order of the learned Single Judge, respondents initiated fresh enquiry and as petitioner has not been cooperating with the Enquiry Officer, enquiry could not be completed at appropriate time.

The grievance of petitioner is that upon setting aside the punishment order, he is entitled to be paid the entire increments withheld by the respondents and there is absolutely no justification whatsoever for them to continue to withhold the same.

3. The Zonal Manager of the bank filed counter stating that pursuant to this Court’s order dated 19.12.2013, they had taken a decision to proceed with the enquiry and appointed Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer, however, petitioner, without cooperating with the Enquiry Officer, approached this Court by way of this Writ Petition. It is stated that petitioner while functioning as Manager at Sangareddy Branch, allegedly committed acts of omission and commission for which he was served another charge sheet dated 13.03.2006. On completion of enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted report and the Disciplinary Authority agreed with the said findings, passed final order dated 16.01.2007, dismissing him from service. On Appeal, Appellate Authority through order dated 28.01.2008 upheld the penalty awarded by the Disciplinary Authority. He therefore, filed Review Petition on 23.03.2008 to consider his case on sympathetic and humanitarian grounds. The Reviewing Authority, exercising the powers conferred under Regulation 18 of UCO Bank Officers Employees (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976, modified the penalty of dismissal to compulsory retirement from bank service. Petitioner challenged the said order dated 16.04.2010 by filing Writ Petition No.782 of

2011 and the same is pending consideration.

It is finally sta