M SUBRAMANYA Vs. VIJAYA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking direction to respondent No.1 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 25.4.2013 produced at Annexure-A by directing the respondents to settle the retirement benefits of the petitioner.

(2.) Brief facts of the case: The petitioner is a former employee of Vijaya Bank. Since there were allegations against him, disciplinary enquiry was conducted against him. As per the enquiry report dated 14.12.2007, the petitioner was made to retire compulsorily from the services. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal on 14.10.2010 confirming the order of the disciplinary authority. During his tenure as employee, he had availed loan for construction of his house. After his compulsory retirement, he requested the bank to settle his retirement benefits and to close the loan account. The respondent-Vijaya Bank did not consider his representation. In the meantime, the Bank had initiated proceedings under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act, as the petitioner was due to an amount of Rs.3,98,421.91/- as on 29.1.2014. Since the respondent-Bank has not considered his representation dated 25.4.2013 vide Annexure-A, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent-Bank has initiated disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner. Based on the enquiry report dated 14.12.2007, the bank has passed an order imposing punishment to the petitioner for compulsory retirement from the services. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority and the said appeal came to be dismissed on 14.10.2010. Immediately, the petitioner filed his first representation dated 16.10.2010 vide Annexure-A1 requesting the Bank to pay his retirement benefits and final representation was given by the petitioner on 25.4.2013 vide Annexure-A. Till today, respondent-Bank has not taken any decision on the representation given by the petitioner. In the meantime, the Bank has initiated proceedings under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act. In support of his case, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bank of Baroda v. S.K. Kool (D) through legal representatives and another [AIR 2014 SC 915) to contend that the employee who suffered a punishment in a departmental enquiry is entitled for superannuation benefits.