1 srk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2002 OF 2001 Mr. Bharat A Vyas … Petitioner. Versus Bank of India … Respondent. Mr. A.D. Shety for Petitioner. Ms. R.S. Pai with Mrs. Renuka Lele i/b Naresh Mehta & Co. for Respondent. CORAM: D.K. DESHMUKH & R. G. KETKAR, JJ. DATED: 14th October, 2009. P.C. 1 By this petition, the Petitioner challenges the order passed by the Chairman and Managing Director of the Bank of India in the Appeal filed by the Petitioner against the order imposing punishment of compulsory retirement on the petitioner with effect from 31.07.1990. Admittedly, Departmental Enquiry was held against the Petitioner. The charges were held to be proved and ultimately an order imposing punishment of compulsory retirement was passed on 2 31.07.1990. That order was confirmed by the Appellate Authority. However, the Reviewing Authority by order dated 15th January, 2000 set aside the order imposing punishment of compulsory retirement and decreased it by imposing penalty of voluntary retirement with effect from 31.07.1990. 2 The grievance of the Petitioner is that in the impugned order it is not stated as to how the period during which the petitioner was under suspension is to be treated and as to what payment is to be made for the suspension period. 3 The learned counsel appearing for the Respondent- Bank after taking instructions states that the petitioner will be made full payment for the suspension period and the amount will be paid to him after making deductions of the amount of subsistence allowance that is paid to the Petitioner. The learned counsel also states that according to his instructions the amounts of provident fund and gratuity were already collected by the Petitioner, however, in case any amount remains to be paid then on the Petitioner pointing out the same, the same shall also be paid to the Petitioner. In our opinion, in view of this statement, following order would meet the ends of justice: 3 i) Within a period of four weeks from today the respondent bank shall pay the amount which the petitioner is entitled for the period he was under suspension treating it as duty period, after making deductions from the amount that amount may have been paid as subsistence allowance together with any Provident Fund or Gratuity that might have not already been paid to the Petitioner. In case the petitioner disputes the calculations of the amount, petitioner shall be at liberty to point out the same to the respondent by making representation within a period of four week from receiving of the amount and on such representation being made by the petitioner, the bank shall consider it and decide it in accordance with law. Rule is made absolute accordingly, no order as to costs. ii) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the petitioner No.2 is present in the court. (D.K. DESHMUKH, J) (R.G. KETKAR, J)