Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 36 (ORI)

Laxmikanta Das v. Odisha Gramya Bank

2020-02-05

PRAMATH PATNAIK

body2020
JUDGMENT : Pramath Patnaik, J. 1. In the instant writ petition, the petitioner challenges the illegal and arbitrary action of the opposite parties in not releasing the terminal benefits of the petitioner without any basis despite repeated requests made by the petitioner before the authorities. 2. The facts as averred in the writ application is that the petitioner was an employee of Odisha Gramya Bank and successfully completed his service tenure in different branches of Odisha without any blemish in his service career. While the petitioner was working as Branch Manager, Orissa Gramya Bank, Narangarh Branch retired from his service on 31.10.2014 after completion of 30 years of service. During his service career, no allegation whatsoever has been made and no proceeding has been initiated against the petitioner and he was working with utmost sincerity. The petitioner received a letter after his retirement on 31.10.2014 disclosing some irregularities as reported by the Chief Inspector, Pipili during the tenure of the petitioner as Branch Manager in Gambharimunda and Narangarh branches and advised to rectify the above irregularities by 15.03.2015 otherwise No Objection Certificate shall not be issued for consideration of settlement of the terminal benefit. On 10.03.2015 the petitioner submitted compliance report before the Chief Manager, Inspection Department, Head office, Gandamunda and requested to take necessary action for payment of terminal benefits. Again the Chief Manager, Inspection Department on 19.03.2015 intimated regarding the rectification of the irregularities pointed out by the C.I., Pipli and accordingly the petitioner submitted the report before the Chief Manager, Inspection. The petitioner on 09.09.2015 filed a representation before the Chief Manager requesting to release his terminal benefits since he is not liable for the irregularities pointed out. But the Senior Manager without releasing the terminal benefit an amount of Rs. 7,60,368/- was withheld from the terminal benefits due to the irregularities committed in loan Account No. 006803171200014 of Narangarh Branch. Being aggrieved by the inaction of the opposite parties in not releasing the terminal benefits, the petitioner has been compelled to take shelter of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. Counter affidavit has been filed by opposite parties justifying the action of the opposite parties. It has been submitted that Rs. 7,06,368/- was withheld from his terminal benefits due to irregularities committed by the petitioner. 3. Counter affidavit has been filed by opposite parties justifying the action of the opposite parties. It has been submitted that Rs. 7,06,368/- was withheld from his terminal benefits due to irregularities committed by the petitioner. During the service tenure of the petitioner, the loan account became NPA and the petitioner had not lodged claim under CGTMSE for recovery of the loan. For such irregularity the Bank suffered a financial loss of Rs. 7,60,368/-. The petitioner has not protected the interest of the Bank by not taking effective step for marking the loan account as NPA and lodging claim under CGTMSE. Since the irregularity came to the knowledge of the Bank after the retirement of the petitioner, no departmental proceeding can be initiated against him as he has already retired and for that reason the terminal benefit of the petitioner was withheld to safeguard the loss caused by him to the Bank. With the aforesaid averments, the opposite parties pray to dismiss the writ application. 4. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner draws the attention of this Court to the illegal activities of the opposite parties, and despite repeated representations made by the petitioner before the opposite party-authorities the terminal benefit of the petitioner was not released. It is submitted that the petitioner was retired from service since 31.10.2014 and till his retirement no allegation has ever been made nor any proceeding has been initiated against the petitioner. The authorities after the retirement of the petitioner withholding the terminal benefits in the guise of some irregularities, which has already been rectified by the petitioner and accordingly submitted compliance report, but till date no step has been taken by the authorities for releasing the money for which he is suffering financial hardship. 5. Mr. Samantaray, learned counsel for opposite parties. apart from reiterating the averments made in the counter affidavit has vociferously submitted that the petitioner has not taken any step to protect the interest of the Bank for which the Bank has suffered the aforesaid financial loss. Due to the irregularities committed by the petitioner during his service tenure, the Bank has suffered a loss of Rs. 7,60,368/- which was withheld from his terminal benefit. 6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the materials on record, this court is of the considered view that the terminal benefit of Rs. 7,60,368/- which was withheld from his terminal benefit. 6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the materials on record, this court is of the considered view that the terminal benefit of Rs. 7,60,368/- should be released in favour of the petitioner brooking any further delay. The petitioner is entitled to the amount as claimed in the writ petition, which the opposite parties should release in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, the terminal benefit of Rs. 7,60,368/- withheld by the opposite parties be released in favour of the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of production of certified copy of the judgment. The petitioner is also entitled to get interest at the rate of 6% per annum with effect from the date of withholding the amount till its payment. The writ petition is accordingly disposed off.