Tapan Mukherjee, J. - (1.) This appeal at the instance of the writ petitioner- appellant is directed against the judgment and order of the Learned Single Judge passed in W.P. 2293 of 2002.
(2.) The appellant was an employee of the respondent-Bank and lastly he was serving the Bank as a Manager of Dakshin Chatra Branch in the District of 24 Parganas (North). By circular dated 23.12.2000 the United Bank of India had circulated a scheme called United Bank of India Employees' Voluntary Retirement Scheme 2000 and the eligible employees were required to submit application within January 2001. Accordingly, the appellant made an application seeking voluntary retirement in the prescribed proforma on 3.1.2001 as he fulfilled the eligibility criteria under paragraph 4 (i) of the Scheme. On 31.5.2001 a complaint was lodged by two fictitions persons namely Prabir Das and Archana Das alleging irregularities in the matter of disbursing loans against the appellant The Regional Manager of the said Bank informed the Superintendent of Police North 24 Parganas of the said complaint on 4.9.2001 seeking appropriate security measures and protection. On 10.9.2001 the appellant's application for voluntary retirement was declined inviting his attention to paragraph 4(d) of the aforesaid circular regarding Voluntary Retirement Scheme. Pursuant to enquiry made by, the Vigilance Department into the complaint dated 31.5.2001, a letter of explanation was issued to the appellant alleging irregularities in sanction an disbursement of loans under SC/P/TSP Scheme. Appellant submitted his explanation on 19.4.2002. On 28.8.2002 he was severally cautioned. The appellant challenged the said order of rejection of his prayer for voluntary retirement as on the date of his application neither any disciplinary proceeding was contemplated nor pending nor he was under suspension an the provision of 4(a) of the said circular regarding voluntary retirement did not come to play on the date of submission of the said application for voluntary retirement. The said rejection of his application for voluntary retirement was wrong, illegal and without jurisdiction. Against the said rejection the appellant-writ petitioner moved this Court in writ jurisdiction.
(3.) Learned Single Judge by his impugned order held that the Bank was justified in rejecting the prayer and upheld the application of. Clause 4(d) of the Scheme and declined to grant any relief to the writ petitioner.;