RAJENDRA PAI H Vs. CANARA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was an employee of the first respondent namely, Canara Bank. While working as Manager in the Kallekkad branch of the Bank, he was issued with charge sheet alleging certain misconduct. On the basis of the charge sheet and the enquiry conducted thereof, a punishment of removal from service which shall not be a disqualification for future employment was imposed on the petitioner by the Bank with effect from June 29, 1984. Eventhough the petitioner had challenged these orders he was unsuccessful. The petitioner was not paid the terminal benefits namely, the Gratuity and the Provident Fund due to him. The petitioner was paid an amount of Rs. 11,923. 49 as gratuity on January 22, 1990. According to him, this amount paid is much lower than what he is legally entitled to. The petitioner submits that the payment of gratuity in the respondent bank is governed by the Canara Bank Employees Gratuity Fund Rules and Regulations. According to the calculation of the petitioner, he is entitled to a total gratuity amount of Rs. 28,875/- After considering the receipt of the amount of Rs. 11,923. 49, a balance amount of Rs. 16,952 is due to the petitioner from the first respondent bank. Regarding provident fund, the petitioner was originally offered an amount of Rs. 26, 347. 46. When the petitioner made a complaint against this, he was issued a statement. According to the statement, an amount of Rs. 51,351. 20 was standing to the credit of petitioner's Provident Fund Account, According tot he Bank, the petitioner had caused financial loss to the Bank on account of certain loan granted to him. The O. P. was filed to call for the records leading to Ext. P4 order and to quash the same and also for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent bank to pay the petitioner the balance gratuity of Rs. 16,951. 51.

(2.) UNDER Ext. P4 out of the total amount of Rs. 24,912. 83, an amount of Rs. 21,104. 25 was withheld. Only the balance amount of Rs. 3808. 58 was liable to be paid to the petitioner.

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed by the Bank. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that the petitioner was employed as an officer in the service of the Bank. In accordance with Rules 46 (8) of the Canara Bank Officers' Service Regulations, 1979, they are entitled to withdraw the amount which is due to them. Regarding the gratuity, it was stated that the gratuity has not been paid which comes to Rs. 27,349. 03. According to the management, the financial loss caused to the Bank on account of illegal occupation by the petitioner was Rs. 20,144. 64. After adjusting Rs. 15, 425. 54 on accruing rent Rs. 4, 719. 10 was due to the petitioner on account of payment of gratuity.