AHSANUL HAQ Vs. PUNJAB FINANCIAL CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner, who was working as Assistant General Manager in Punjab Financial Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Respondent Corporation), has filed the instat petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 10th August, 2007 (Annexure P - -1) passed by Respondent No. 1 imposing the penalty of forfeiture of gratuity and leave encashment; as well as the order, dated 1st September, 2008 (Annexure P -21), whereby the appeal filed by the Petitioner against the said order, has been dismissed.

(2.) IN the present case, the Petitioner joined the services of the Respondent Corparation as Assistant Manager (Finance) in the year 1986. Subsequently due to his hard work, the Petitioner was promoted as Assistant General Manager. After completion of 20 years of service, on 20th April, 2007 the Petitioner tendered his resignation to the rerspondent Corporation under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme as adopted by it and requested to relieve him from the services of the Respondent Corporation by waiving the requirement of three months' notice. In the meantime, an anonymous complaint was made against the Petitioner alleging therein that he was doing some private business and had gone out of India without prior permission. On the said complaint, the comments of the Petitioner were sought, which were sent by him on 8th May, 2007. Thereafter, the request of the Petitioner for voluntary retirement under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme was accepted by the Respondent Corporation, but his prayer for waiver of three months' notice period was not accepted. Consequently, in lieu of three months' notice period, the Petitioner deposited Rs. 80,100 with the Respondent -Corporation on 18th May, 2007. Thereupon, the Petitioner was relieved from the services of the Respondent Corporation, - -vide office order, dated 21st May, 2007 with effect from the same date.

(3.) AGAINST the above -said order, the Petitioner filed an appeal and finally the said appeal was dismissed by the Executive Committee without providing an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner and passed a totally non -speaking order. The said appellate order was quashed by this Court in a writ petition (CWP No. 6192 of 2008) filed by the Petitioner, - -vide order, dated July 4, 2008, and remanded the matter back to the Executive Committee of the Respondent Corporation to decide the appeal filed by the Petitioner by passing a reasoned speaking order. In pursuance of the said order, the Petitioner was heard. The Executive committee, - -vide order, dated 1st September, 2008 again rejected the appeal filed by the Petitioner.