SHEKHAR B.SARAF,J. - (1.) This is an application arising out of an appeal under clause 15 of the letters patent from the original order dated 18th July, 2017, passed in W.P. No. 379 of 2017 (Rana Mazumder ?v- United Bank of India and Ors.) read with modification order dated 12th September, 2017, filed by the respondent bank in the original writ petition. The above writ application was disposed of directing the respondent bank to release the entire sum lying to the credit of the petitioner on account of gratuity positively within two weeks from the date of communication of this order with interest at the rate of 10 per cent per annum, payable from the date after the expiry of 30 days from the date of superannuation of the petitioner which has been notionally decided by the bank.
(2.) The facts giving rise to this application are as follows: (i) The appellant is a nationalised bank constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970. (ii) During the tenure of service as Chairman of Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank (BGVB) from 20th April, 2010 to 3rd November, 2012, the respondent had allegedly committed various irregular acts and thereby failed to take all possible steps to ensure and protect the interest of the appellant bank, allegedly failed to discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and accordingly acted in contravention of Regulation 3(1) and 3(3) of United Bank of India Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulations 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'said Regulations') constituting misconduct in terms of Regulation 24 of the said Regulations. (iii) Accordingly, the Executive Director and Disciplinary Authority, issued a charge sheet bearing No. PD/DIR/BGVB/ 2613/5896/2014 dated 26th March, 2014, containing 21 charges against the respondent. Subsequently on 4th August, 2014 the Executive Director and Disciplinary Authority issued certain additional charges containing four articles of charge. The respondent submitted his defence to the charges and thereafter the enquiry officer completed the said enquiry on 1st December, 2015. The said enquiry report was forwarded to the respondent on 15th December, 2015. The respondent submitted his written submissions to the enquiry officer's report on 6th February, 2016. (iv) The Executive Director and Disciplinary Authority vide his order bearing reference no. PD/DIR/2613/752/2016 dated 7th May, 2016 passed the final order, the operative portion is delineated below: "After considering the facts and circumstances in the matter and gravity of the proved misconduct and after considering your submission and also after applying my mind independently, I hereby impose upon you the Major Penalty of "Removal from Service which will not be a disqualification for future employment" in terms of Regulation 4(i) of United Bank of India Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976, with immediate effect, would be just and proper and commensurate with the irregularities committed by you. Please note, save and except what has already been paid to you as your own contribution to Provident Fund and provisional pension till date of issuance of this order, you will not be entitled to any other terminal benefit as enumerated below: 1. Pension / Commutation of Pension in terms of Regulation 22, read with Regulation 46 of United Bank of India (Employees') Pension Regulation, 1995. 2. Gratuity in terms of Regulation 46(i)(e) of United Bank of India Officers' Service Regulations, 1979. 3. Encashment of accrued leave as on notional date of superannuation in terms of Regulation 38 of United Bank of India Officers' Service Regulations, 1979. This apart, it shall be open for the Bank to recover the aforementioned financial loss from you in accordance with law." (v) The respondent preferred an appeal against the above order dated 7th May, 2016 before the statutory appellate authority on 10th June, 2016. (vi) During the pendency of the above appeal before the statutory appellate authority a writ petition was filed by the respondent seeking a direction upon the appellant bank to release the gratuity and the leave encashment in favour of the petitioner, amongst other prayers. The Learned Single Judge by an order dated 7th December, 2016, disposed of the said writ petition with the following directions: "(a) That the Managing Director and Appellate Authority of qua the petitioner of UBI, being the respondent no. 2 to this writ petition, shall decide the appeal of the petitioner appearing at pages 30 to 92 of the writ petition expeditiously in accordance with law and preferably not later than a period of twelve weeks from the date of communication of this order. The reasoned decision of the Appellate Authority shall reach the petitioner and the Appellate Authority shall be entitled to, as necessary, issue consequential orders based on such reasoned decision; (b) The appropriate authority of the bank shall consider the prayer of the writ petitioner for leave encashment in the light of Regulation 38 of the 1976 Regulations as interpreted by the circular of the bank dated 21st July, 2015 appearing at page 100 of the writ petition. Such exercise shall be completed by the authority of the bank within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of this order." (vii) Thereafter, the aforesaid statutory appeal was rejected by an order dated 19th January, 2017. Assailing the entire disciplinary proceedings, orders passed by the authority and the forfeiture of the gratuity in terms of Regulation 46(i)(e) of the said Regulations, the respondent filed the writ application being W.P. No. 379 of 2017. (viii) After hearing the parties, the Learned Single Judge passed the impugned order dated 18th July, 2017, giving directions for filing of affidavits. The Learned Single Judge further passed an interim order directing the appellant to immediately release the gratuity within two weeks from the date of communication of the order. The operative portion of the order is provided below: "This is a case which calls for treating it as an exception to the generally held view of not passing a mandatory order at the very early stage. The petitioner had retired in the year 2014. In three years' time he had not been favoured with any retrial benefit except his own share of Provident Fund contribution. The respondents are not releasing his pension in view of the fact that he is not entitled to pension under the relevant law. This is a case where justice demands that for the sustenance of the petitioner, who had retired from the post of Deputy General Manager of the Bank, the bank should be directed to release the gratuity in favour of the petitioner within a period two weeks from the date of communicating this order. I have considered this case to be coming under one of the recognised exceptions to the general injunction in passing an order of mandatory injunction at the initial stage. In such view of it I direct the respondent bank to release the entire sum lying to the credit of the petitioner on account of gratuity positively within two weeks from the date of communication of this order with interest at the rate of 10 per cent per annum, payable from the date after the expiry of 30 days from the date of superannuation of the petitioner which has been notionally decided by the bank. With the above observation the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs."
(3.) Mr. Moloy Kr. Basu, Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant bank submitted that the Learned Single Judge has proceeded on a wrong notion that the disciplinary authority in the final order had failed to quantify any amount suffered by the appellant bank on account of the alleged acts on the part of the respondent. He further submitted that the legal finding of the Learned Single Judge that the issue of the right of the appellant bank to forfeit the gratuity of a delinquent employee is no longer res- integra and the same has been settled by various judicial pronouncements is contrary to law.;