HARI NARAYAN RAM Vs. BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is aggrieved by show cause notice bearing Reference No. ZO:HRD:MC:2012-13:5989 dated 1.3.2013 issued by Zonal Manager, Patna Zone, Bank of India asking the petitioner as to why amount of his gratuity be not adjusted by the Bank towards financial loss to the tune of Rs. 8,21,690.35. Petitioner joined in the Bank of India as clerk on 1.3.1979 and he continued in service with the above stated Bank and posted at various branches of the said Bank but on 9.7.2009, he was put under suspension and departmental proceeding was initiated against him on the charges that huge amount of Bank was misappropriated by him. In the aforesaid departmental proceeding, major punishment of dismissal from service was awarded against him vide order dated 27.12.2010. After dismissal of the petitioner from service, Bank of India seized two saving bank accounts of the petitioner and being aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the Bank, petitioner filed CWJC No. 8317/2012 which was disposed of by a bench of this court on 10.7.2012 directing the Assistant General Manager, Bank Zonal Office, Chanakya Towers, R' Block, Patna to consider the representation of the petitioner, if necessary, obtain further guidelines from the higher authorities and then pass appropriate order in accordance with law, preferably, within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the aforesaid order.

(2.) On 1.3.2013 concerned Bank issued show cause notice to the petitioner as to why defalcated amount be not adjusted from gratuity of the petitioner. Being aggrieved by issuance of the aforesaid show cause notice, petitioner came before this court.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in departmental proceeding, petitioner was awarded with punishment of removal from service and nowhere in the order of the departmental proceeding, it had been mentioned that defalcated amount shall be adjusted from gratuity of the petitioner and therefore, the above stated show cause notice dated 1.3.2013 is not accordance with law and if concerned Bank is permitted to adjust defalcated amount from gratuity of the petitioner, the same shall be amount to double jeopardy. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in spite of specific direction of this court, concerned Assistant General Manager did not pass any order on the representation of the petitioner and therefore, the aforesaid act of Bank officials is clear violation of order of this court. Learned counsel for the petitioner further, submitted that payment of gratuity cannot be stopped by the employer as held by Apex Court of this country in Civil Appeal No. 6770 of 2013 Ed State of Jharkhand and Ors. vs. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava and Another, 2013 3 PLJR(SC) 458 decided on 14.8.2013.