BHAGIRATHI PARIDA Vs. CHIEF MANAGER, UCO BANK, CUTTACK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the action of the opposite parties in not making payment of his arrear salary for 8 days i.e. from 1.6.2009 to 8.6.2009 and the dues with regard to encashment of 240 days earned leave after his retirement from service as Assistant Manager/Manager at different branches of the UCO Bank.

(2.) THE facts leading to filing of the present writ petition are that the petitioner joined in Clerical cadre in April, 1970 in UCO Bank and promoted to the Officer cadre in July, 1979. Thereafter, the petitioner while discharging his duties at different branches of the Bank was posted at Cuttack Main Branch as Assistant Manager (Accounts) on 16.7.2008. While he was functioning as Assistant Manager (Accounts) at Main Branch, Cuttack, received a charge -sheet alleging commission of irregularities on five grounds during the period from 21.12.2004 to 28.7.2007 of the Bank. Out of five charges, only three charges were proved by the Enquiry Officer and accordingly on 12.5.2008 the Disciplinary Authority imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement from service against him, even if the Bank authority did not find any financial loss or any kind of misappropriation. Being aggrieved with the said order of compulsory retirement, though the petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority, the appellate authority confirmed the order of punishment imposed against him, even after getting positive information from the zonal office, Bhubaneswar of the Bank that the money was deposited with the Branch on 20.6.2007 and the bank has not sustained any loss and therefore the petitioner did not think it proper to move any legal forum against the order of appellate authority since he had only six months service for superannuation. It is averred that as per the practice followed in the Bank, at the closure of business, the Assistant Manager (Cash) reconciled the receipt and payment with the records of Accounts Section and prepares the cashiers ' summary register which is signed by the Head of the Cash Department and countersigned by the Assistant Manager (Accounts) after verifying the physical cash in vault.

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed by the opposite parties taking a stand that the Disciplinary Authority imposed punishment of compulsory retirement on 12.5.2009 against which, the petitioner preferred an appeal and petitioner was well aware about the decision of the Disciplinary Authority. The petitioner was on leave till 31.5.2009 and thereafter remained absent from duty unauthorizedly from 1.6.2009 to 8.6.2009. The petitioner appeared on 8.6.2009 and received the order of the Disciplinary Authority immediately when the Bank published order in daily News Paper. As the petitioner did not perform his duty for the period from 1.6.2009 to 8.6.2009 and was compulsorily retired from service by virtue of the findings of the Disciplinary Proceeding, he is not entitled to get any leave encashment as claimed by him for 240 days which got lapsed on compulsorily retirement. It is contended that as per Regulation 38 of UCO Bank Officers Regulations, 1979, which was amended in the year 1999 and approved by the Board in its meeting dated 9.8.1997 as revealed from the Bank letter dated 23.3.1999 incorporating the words ''discharge '', ''dismissal '' or ''termination '' in 1st paragraph of Clause -38 thereof. Since punishment of compulsory retirement was imposed against the petitioner, he is not entitled to the benefit which is equivalent to the emoluments of 240 days privilege leave that had been accumulated in his credit.