RAVINDRA CHAND DEONATH Vs. CHHATTISGARH RAJYA GRAMIN BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present writ petition, the petitioner is prays for following relief:-

(2.) Case of the petitioner, as projected in the writ petition, is that the petitioner initially appointed as Office Assistant in the year 1991 in the respondent/Bank and thereafter, promoted on the post of Officers Scale-I in the year 2015. According to him, during his posting as Branch Head, departmental enquiry was contemplated against the petitioner with regard to certain financial irregularities. In the said departmental enquiry, the charges leveled against the petitioner have been found proved. Thereafter, on 26/12/2022, a show cause notice was issued proposing punishment of dismissal which shall ordinarily be disqualification for future employment. The petitioner submitted his reply and denied the contents of the show cause notice. However, the authorities vide order dtd. 02/02/2023 inflicted the punishment of compulsory retirement under Rule 39(1)(b)(iii) of the Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank Officers and Employees Service Regulations, 2013 (for short 'the Regulations') and also ordered for forfeiture of entire leave encashment amount. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal, which has been dismissed vide order dtd. 01/01/2024. Hence, this petition.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the Regulation 67 provides for lapse of leave. In terms of Regulation- 67 of the Regulations, when an employee of the Bank ceases to be in service, he is entitled to be paid all allowances and pay for the period of privilege leave at his credit and therefore, submits that there is no clause in Regulation-67, which deprives the petitioner from availing the benefit of leave encashment. He further submits that the petitioner had number of leaves to his credit and therefore, despite the order of compulsory retirement, the petitioner could not have been deprived the benefit of leave encashment.