PURNA CHANDRA KANUNGO Vs. BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed W.P. (C) No. 8943/2014 to quash the order dated 26.02.2014 under Annexure-5 directing to recover the gratuity amount of Rs. 3,82,650/- to be appropriate towards the loss of Rs. 10,05,03,788/- caused to the Bank and the letter dated 09.06.2014 under Annexure-2/A passed by opposite party No. 3 rejecting his request for release of compassionate allowance. He seeks for a direction to the opposite parties to pay the gratuity as per the Wage Settlement dated 01.1.2007. and also compassionate allowance not more than ? ... "rd of his pension. The petitioner has filed W.P. (C) No. 20270/2012 to quash the order of dismissal imposed by the Disciplinary Authority vide Annexure-16 dated 19.11.2008 and confirmation made thereof by the appellate authority by order dated 07.05.2009 under Annexure-17 and reconfirmation by the reviewing authority vide order dated 29.09.2012 under Annexure-23. He has prayed for a direction to the opposite parties to treat him in service and grant all consequential service and financial benefits as due and admissible to him in accordance with law.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case in hand is that the petitioner following a process of selection by the Banking Recruitment Board was selected as a Probationary Officer in Bank of India and pursuant to appointment order dated 13.10.1981 issued to his permanent home address at Bhubaneswar, he joined on 30.12.1981 at Bank's Zonal Office at Patna in the State of Bihar. After completion of probation period of two years, he was confirmed as an Officer in the said Bank in the Jr. Management Grade Scale-I. He was promoted to Middle Manager, Grade Scale-II w.e.f. 01.04.1991 and then Middle Managing Grade Scale-III w.e.f. 28-12-1996. Thereafter, he was promoted to Sr. Management Grade Scale-IV w.e.f. 01.04.2002. As his date of birth according to the official record is 16.10.1952, his due date of retirement from service on attaining the age of superannuation is 31.10.2012. The petitioner had opted for 'pension scheme' from bank service as per option exercised by him. The petitioner has discharged his duty as a Branch Manager in different branches of the bank and also has been issued merit certificate dated 30.12.2006 by the Bank Management in honour of his completion of 25 years of unblemished track record together with award of a "Medallion" in recognition of his contribution to the growth of the Bank. He has discharged his duty as Branch Manager in four States and five administrative Zones of the said Bank within the period of 25 years. While he was continuing in service, he was placed on suspension on 26.04.2007 on the allegation of misconduct and misappropriation of funds by middleman amounting to Rs. 10.15 Crores in deposit accounts of three State Government Organisations, namely Andhra Pradesh State Disaster Mitigation Society, Andhra Pradesh Vulnerable Reduction Fund Trust, both under Planning Department Andhra Pradesh State Secretariat and the Public University, Acharya NG Ranga Agricultural University constituted under Andhra Pradesh State Agricultural University Act, 1963. After suspension, the Zonal Manager, Bank of India, Hyderabad Zone called upon the petitioner to submit his explanation vide memo dated 07.08.2007 which was served on him on 08.08.2007 and accordingly, he submitted his written explanation on 27.08.2007. having not satisfied with the explanation, major penalty proceeding was initiated against him with issuance of articles of charge dated 01.03.2008 by the General Manager, HR, Head Office, the Disciplinary Authority and the same was served on the petitioner in person on 01.04.2008 through Zonal Office, Hyderabad. The petitioner submitted his written statement dated 10.04.2008 addressing to the Zonal Manager, HR, the Disciplinary Authority through Zonal Office, Hyderabad and denied the charges leveled against him. The Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 29.04.2008 ordered for initiation of departmental enquiry against him and appointed Mr. G. Chandra Sekaran, retired Asst. General Manager, Bank of India, Hyderabad, Zonal Office as the Enquiring Authority for conducting the departmental enquiry pursuant to which he commenced the hearing on 27.05.2008 and concluded the same on 31.05.2008. On conclusion of the departmental enquiry, the petitioner's defence assistance Mr. S. Swaminathan, an Officer of the Bank of India, Hyderabad Zone submitted his written brief dated 14.06.2008 to the Enquiring Authority through e-mail followed by dispatch of the hard copies through Speed Post/Courier Service at the home address of the Enquiring Authority in Tamilnadu. The enquiry report was forwarded to the petitioner under the cover of the Disciplinary Authority's letter dated 07.08.2008 which he received on 25.08.2008 through Zonal Office, Hyderabad. Thereafter he submitted his representation dated 29.08.2008 to the Disciplinary Authority through Speed Post in response to the findings of the enquiry report. For the self-same allegation, CBI also commenced investigation and lodged the FIR dated 31.07.2007 in the Special Court of CBI, Hyderabad on 01.08.2007 showing the petitioner as accused No. 1. No incriminating documents or assets of disproportionate nature found during search of his residence and locker on 02.08.2007. He was interrogated by the CBI Team during the period from August, 2007 to January, 2008. The petitioner was also summoned to BSFC, Bangalore but he has not been paid his traveling bill for such interrogation. CBI arrested him on 23.10.2008 and he was enlarged on bail on 15.11.2008. Thereafter, he was served with the dismissal order on 27.11.2008 at the Zonal Office, Hyderabad Zone which is at page 175 of the brief. Against the said order of imposition of major penalty by the Disciplinary Authority, the petitioner preferred appeal before the appellate authority and the appellate authority confirmed the said order of punishment which was served on the petitioner at Hyderabad at page 183 of the brief. Against the said order, he preferred review and the reviewing authority also rejected the same vide order dated 29.09.2012 which was served on the petitioner at his permanent address at Plot No. 2084, Sabara Sahi Lane, Budheswari Colony, Bhubaneswar. It also reveals from the document annexed to the writ petition that the mercy petition under Annexure-18 dated 12.09.2009 and representation for reduction of punishment under Annexure-20 dated 27.01.2012 and reminder dated 20.08.2012 under Annexure-21 and subsequent reminder for non-communication of the result of the review petition dated 11.10.2012 issued by the petitioner to the opposite parties that correspondences have been made from his local address from Plot No. 2084, Sabara Sahi Lane, Budheswari Colony, Bhubaneswar. The petitioner after discharge from his service is staying at his own residence at Bhubaneswar and has made correspondences from his home address. The petitioner has not been paid allowance and gratuity as per the Wage Settlement dated 01.11.2007. He has filed W.P. (C) No. 8943/2014 which is pending for consideration. Hence the petitioner approached this Court to quash the order of punishment issued by the Disciplinary Authority as confirmed by the appellate authority and reconfirmed by the reviewing authority and consequentially direct for release of compassionate allowance and gratuity, as mentioned above.

(3.) The matter was listed on Board on 07.01.2016 under the heading "Fresh Admission". It is urged that since the pleadings are complete, the matter should be placed for final disposal. At this point of time, Mr. G.A.R. Dora, learned Senior Counsel appearing for opposite party No. 3 raises preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the writ petition and submits that the question of maintainability of the writ petition be decided first. Though he was called upon to address the Court both on maintainability and merit, he submitted that unless the question of maintainability of the writ petition is decided, he will not address this Court with regard to the merit of the case. Therefore, this Court is constrained to proceed to decide the maintainability of the writ petitions as a preliminary issue.