1 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 6554/2008 Pratap Manwani Vs. Chief Manager, Allahabad Bank & Ors. Date of Order :: 21.04.2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr Harish Mathur, for the petitioner/s. ... By an order dated 14.6.1996 the disciplinary authority that is Deputy General Manager, Allahabad Bank, Northern Zone, New Delhi inflicted a penalty of removal from service upon the petitioner in the terms of Regulation f-4(g) of Allahabad Bank Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 and a review application preferred to review the order aforesaid also came to be rejected on 16.8.1997. A challenge to the orders aforesaid is given by this petition for writ which was presented on 9.4.2008 i.e. after a lapse of about a period of 10 years. No reason is given by the petitioner to challenge the order of removal after the inordinate delay referred above. It is also relevant to note that the order impugned was passed at Delhi and at the relevant time the petitioner too was posted at Parliament Street Branch of the respondent-Bank at New Delhi. Be that as it may the delay and latches on part of the petitioner in challenging the order passed by the disciplinary authority and also of 2 the reviewing authority dated 16.9.1997 is a reason sufficient for not interfering in the matter while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is also urged by counsel for the petitioner that a direction be issued to the respondent -Bank to make the payment of dues of the petitioner with interest at the rate of 30% per annum which was said to be charged from the petitioner by the Bank while effecting recovery from him. It is relevant to note that as a matter of fact the respondents adjusted a sum of Rs. 3,08,210/- from the provident fund and gratuity of the petitioner in pursuant to a judgment and decree dated 27.2.2002 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Jodhpur in Original Civil Suit No.17/99. The interest awarded to the Bank in the suit aforesaid is only at the rate of 14.79% and not at the rate of 30% as said by the petitioner. There is no statutory right in favour of the petitioner for receiving interest and as such issue in this regard can not be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction of this Court. The petitioner may agitate the cause regarding grant of interest before the appropriate forum. For the reasons stated above the petition for writ is dismissed. (GOVIND MATHUR), J. Jgoyal '