K N AITHAL Vs. CANARA BANK AND ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Quashing of Regulation 38 of Canara Bank (Officers') Service Regulations, 1979 is sought by petitioner on the ground that it contravenes Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. A mandamus is sought by petitioner to respondents to release leave encashment benefit to petitioner. It is matter of record that petitioner was departmentally proceeded against and consequent upon a departmental inquiry, penalty of dismissal from service was inflicted upon petitioner in the year 2009 and there is no challenge to the penalty inflicted upon petitioner. What is sought in this petitioner is the encashment of leave of 240 days.

(2.) Petitioner'S counsel relies upon Rule 39 of Central Civil Service (Leave) Rules, 1972 to submit that the leave encashment cannot be curtailed even in a case of dismissal, as it is a deferred salary and the leave encashment can be only curtailed if some amount is recoverable from an employee, who has been dismissed from service. Reliance is placed upon decisions in Canara Bank & Ors. Vs. Ranvir Singh, 2011 4 SCT 21; T.Veeravinothan Vs. Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Kilpauk, Chennai & Ors, 2016 1 LLJ 730 and Ashwani Kumar Sharma Vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce, 2003 103 DLT 738 (DB) in support of above submission.

(3.) On the contrary, learned counsel for respondent maintains that the Regulation 38 of Canara Bank (Officers') Service Regulations, 1979 is based on sound logic and principle and it cannot be negated by reference to Rule 39 of Central Civil Service (Leave) Rules, 1972 as the aforesaid Rule is not in conflict with the Regulation in question. While submitting that the decisions relied upon by petitioner's counsel have no application to the instant case, dismissal of this petition is sought by counsel for respondents.