Ranjit Singh, J. - (1.) Petitioner, a Bank employee, has made a claim for retiral benefits, including pension, provident fund, gratuity, which has been rejected by the Bank on the ground that the petitioner was ordered to be removed from service by way of punishment. The petitioner rather would rely upon the same order to make a claim for pension and pensionary benefits, including gratuity, as these benefits had been allowed as per the said order. The operative part of the order of removal read as under:- "I have decided to impose upon Sh. V.K. Sharma, SWO, Kalayat Branch the penalty of removal from service with superannuation benefits i.e. Pension and/or Provident Fund and Gratuity as would be due otherwise under the rules or regulations prevailing at the relevant time and without disqualification from future employment in terms of clause 6(b) of memorandum of Settlement on Disciplinary Action proceedings for workmen signed between workmen union on 10th April, 2002 as Circulated by Head Office Circular No.Per/33 dated 12.9.2002." A perusal of the above order would clearly show that the petitioner was held entitled to superannuation benefits like pension, provident fund, gratuity but the same were denied to him, by rejecting his claim in this regard on 8.10.2008 followed by rejection of his representation dated 4.6.2009. The petitioner has accordingly challenged these orders through the present writ petition.
(2.) The petitioner was appointed as a Clerk-cum-Cashier in the year 1986. As per him, he was not in a fit state of mind because of his wife was suffering from illness. The petitioner, however, was sent to the main branch to work on 4.9.2007, where he disbursed payment to 115 pensioners. Because of heavy rush two receipts, one amounting to Rs. 3600/- and another amounting to Rs. 10,000/- could not be entered and both these vouchers remained in the drawer along with the cash. On learning about the same, the petitioner deposited the amount in the respective accounts and there was no complaint from any customer. Grievance is that still, the respondent Bank initiated action against the petitioner. The petitioner had pleaded his unfit state of mind developed due to his family circumstances and had accordingly submitted reply to the charge sheet served to him. The enquiry was conducted and on the basis of evidence led, the disciplinary authority imposed the order of removal from service, operative part of which has been reproduced above.
(3.) The petitioner filed appeal against the same but remained unsuccessful. Not only that, the respondent-bank had rejected his claim for grant of pension and pensionary benefits on 8.10.2008. The petitioner had challenged this action by filing Civil Writ Petition No.1307 of 2009 before this Court, which was disposed of by granting liberty to him to agitate his claim for grant of pension and provident fund, which the petitioner complied with. The representation filed by the petitioner for release of retiral benefits has now been rejected on 4.6.2009 and so the petitioner has challenged this order through the present writ petition.;