Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

VIJAI NARAYAN OJHA versus THE B.S.B. LTD. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Vijai Narayan Ojha v. The B.S.B. Ltd. & Others - WRIT - A No. 25481 of 2002 [2006] RD-AH 215 (3 January 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

COURT NO.34

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.25481 of 2002

Vijai Narayan Ojha.

Versus

The Banaras State Bank Limited & Ors.

Hon'ble Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.

Hon'ble Dilip Gupta, J.

The petitioner was issued a charge sheet and after completion of the inquiry proceedings the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement by the order dated 27/2/1999. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order. The said appeal was rejected by the appellate authority. This order was challenged by the petitioner in this Court by means of a writ petition being Writ Petition No. 2785 of 2000. This Court disposed of the petition on 08/2/2002 by directing the Bank to decide the appeal afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In compliance of the aforesaid judgment and order, the appellate authority gave personal hearing to the petitioner and ultimately by means of the order dated 06/5/2002 modified the earlier order dated 27/2/1999. The operative part of the order is quoted below:

"Sri V.N. Ojha stands retired from the        services of Bank after close of business of 31/12/2001".

Sri Ojha shall not be entitled for anything other than what he has received from the date of suspension till 27/2/1999 i.e. date of final orders issued by the D. The period of his services after 27/2/1999 till 31/12/2001 shall be treated as leave without pay. However, all the terminal benefits related to Sri Ojha is hereby released as per rules of the Bank.

It is, therefore, clear that the punishment imposed upon the petitioner was modified to the extent that he was ordered to retire from the services of the Bank after close of the business of 31/12/2001, but at the same time it was specifically ordered that he shall not be entitled to anything other than what he had received from the date of suspension till 27/2/1999 and the period from 27/2/1999 till 31/12/2001 was to be treated as leave without pay. However, all the terminal benefits were ordered to be released as per the rules of the Bank.

It is this order dated 06/5/2002 which has been challenged by the petitioner to the extent that he should be paid the emoluments from 27/2/1999 till 31/12/2001.  

We have heard Shri K.P. Agarwal learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri Ashok Trivedi learned counsel appearing for the respondents and have perused the materials available on record.

Shri K.P. Agarwal has submitted that the punishment imposed is disproportionate to the act of misconduct and therefore the petitioner should be paid the emoluments for the intervening period. On the other hand Shri Ashok Trivedi learned counsel appearing for the respondent bank has submitted that considering the facts and circumstances, particularly the misconduct alleged against the petitioner it cannot be said that the punishment imposed was disproportionate.

We have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion the appellate authority has considered the entire facts and circumstances and by a detailed order dated 06/5/2002 has modified the punishment. The order passed by the appellate authority is a detailed order and we are unable to find any infirmity in the same which may warrant interference by the Court in exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

03/1/2006

SB.


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.