Ch.Janardhan vs. The General Manager/Chief

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY

W.P.No.18345 of 2009

ORDER

The petitioner retired from the service of Adilabad District Cooperative Central Bank, the first respondent herein, as Manager, on 31.08.2008. His grievance is that the respondents have not released the gratuity as yet. The petitioner contends that in the year 2001, a charge memo was issued to him alleging that he involved in misappropriation of funds of the Bank and on consideration of the explanation submitted by him, the Bank passed an order, dated 06.06.2003, imposing the punishment of stoppage of one increment. He submitted that only on the ground that the criminal case is pending against him, the respondents withheld the gratuity.

The first respondent filed a counter affidavit. He stated that the petitioner colluded with others in defalcating about one crore of rupees to the Bank and C.C.No.370 of 2008 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Asifabad, is pending. Reliance is placed on the instructions issued by the Government from time to time on this aspect.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the Bank.

The petitioner faced allegations to the effect that in collusion with other employees, he misappropriated the funds of the Bank. A charge sheet was issued by the Bank itself as a measure of disciplinary proceedings. The petitioner submitted his explanation and on consideration of the same, an order was passed on 06.06.2003 imposing the punishment of stoppage of one

increment. An observation was made to the effect that the petitioner was not guilty of misappropriation of funds, but there were administrative lapses on his part. Almost on the same subject, prosecution was initiated against the petitioner and several others in C.C.No.370 of 2008 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Asifabad. The petitioner was figured as accused No.12.

It is, no doubt, true that the Registrar of Cooperation issued letter, dated 27.01.2008, addressed to the first respondent to the effect that whenever the charges in departmental proceedings or criminal prosecution are pending, a retired employee need not be extended the benefit of leave encashment, gratuity and commutation of pension.

In the instant case, the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner have ended with the imposition of minor punishment. In the criminal case, the charge sheet was filed only in the recent past. It would take quite some time for the criminal Court to conclude the proceedings. The gratuity is a benefit, which is conferred on the employee on account of the service over the period. No statutory rules are cited, which justify the withholding of gratuity on the sole ground that criminal case is pending. This Court is of the view that the interest of the respondents can be protected by directing that the petitioner shall furnish bank guarantee for the amount of gratuity that may be paid to him.

Hence, the Writ Petition is allowed, directing that the respondents shall release the gratuity amount to the petitioner on his furnishing the Bank guarantee. The said Bank guarantee shall be continued till disposal of the criminal case. The further steps in

this direction would depend upon the outcome of the criminal case. There shall be no order as to costs.

L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J

_____________________

Date:13.12.2010 sj