MADHYA PRADESH GRAMIN Vs. KAKASINGH CHHABRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant/ Madhya Pradesh Gramin Bank has filed present Writ Appeal being aggrieved by the order dtd. 2/9/2023 passed in Writ Petition No.28102/2022 whereby Writ Petition has been with direction to grant the benefit of leave encashment to Writ Petitioner.

(2.) The respondent (hereinafter referred as '' Writ Petitioner''). The petitioner was working as Bank Manager, he was served with the show cause notice. He filed reply which was not found satisfactory. The General Manager being disciplinary authority issued charge sheet dtd. 23/1/2014 and issued direction for conducting the departmental enquiry. The Enquiry Officer submitted a enquiry report on 8/7/2014 in which charges were found proved. The petitioner served with the show cause notice dtd. 11/5/2015 proposing the punishment of compulsory retirement and forfeiture. The Writ Petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order on 6/4/2016 and after dismissal of the appeal, Writ Petition was filed which is pending for adjudication. The petitioner claimed leave encashment as per Regulation 67 of Narmada Jhabua Gramin Bank (Officers & Employees) Service Regulation, 2010 ( in short '' Regulation, 2010'') but same was denied to him by relaying the Regulation 67 of Regulation, 2010. The Writ Petitioner challenged the impugned order dtd. 18/8/2022 by way of Writ Petition No.28102/2023. Vide order dtd. 2/9/2023, the Writ Court has allowed the Writ Petition that in case of compulsory retirement, the Writ Petitioner would be entitled for leave encashment under Regulation 61 and 67 of Regulation, 2010. Hence, this Writ Appeal before this Court by the Bank.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that all leave shall lapse on the death of an officer or employee ceases to be in the service of the Bank. Therefore, the petitioner who was compulsory retired by way of major penalty which comes under the category of ''ceases from service'', thus his all leaves gets laps under Regulation 67. It is further submitted that the learned Writ Court has failed to make distinction between compulsory retirement and removal from service by way of a major punishment. Heard.