Dismissal for prolonged unauthorized absence and inordinate delay of 25 years disentitles employee to service benefits.

The Appellant was appointed as a clerk at Bank of India (Respondent No. 2) in 1972 and promoted to the Officer category in 1981

In 1996, the Appellant remained unauthorizedly absent from duty, claiming he had applied for study leave, which was not sanctioned under Bank Rules

Despite reminders to report to the Zonal Office, the Appellant failed to resume duty or participate in the resulting disciplinary proceedings

Consequently, the Deputy Zonal Manager passed an order on January 19, 1998, dismissing the Appellant from service

After a delay of nearly 25 years, the Appellant filed high court petitions in 2023 seeking retiral benefits and challenging the 1998 dismissal

The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on grounds of delay and lack of merit, leading to this Letters Patent Appeal (LPA)

1. Whether the dismissal order passed by the Deputy Zonal Manager was void for lack of competence/jurisdiction

2. Whether the Appellant’s claim for pensionary benefits constitutes a continuing cause of action that overrides the doctrine of delay and laches

3. Whether the dismissal from service entails the mandatory forfeiture of past service and retiral benefits under the Bank's Pension Regulations

Regulations 21 and 22 of the Bank of India Pension Regulations, 1995, which stipulate that dismissal or termination from service entails the forfeiture of entire past service and disqualifies an employee from pensionary benefits

Doctrine of Delay and Laches as elucidated in Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. T.T. Murali Babu (2014), which holds that extraordinary delay (in this case, 25 years) reflects inactivity that disentitles a litigant from equitable writ jurisdiction

Principle from C. Jacob v. Director of Geology and Mining (2008), stating that subsequent disposal of a stale representation does not revive a dead claim or furnish a fresh cause of action

The court found that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted in accordance with service regulations, noting that the Appellant was given multiple opportunities to resume duty and participate in the inquiry but failed to do so

Regarding the challenge to the authority of the Deputy Zonal Manager, the court verified that under the Bank of India Officer Employees’ (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976, the Deputy Zonal Manager was the competent disciplinary authority for Scale I officers like the Appellant

On the issue of delay, the court rejected the "continuing cause of action" argument for pension, distinguishing it from the cited precedents because the Appellant's right to pension never vested due to his dismissal

The court reasoned that since Regulation 22 mandatorily forfeits service upon dismissal, the internal bank order was legally sound

The court held that under Regulation 22, the Appellant’s dismissal resulted in the forfeiture of his service, rendering him ineligible for pensionary benefits

The Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed, and the judgment of the Single Judge was upheld