STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. D K SEETHARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State Bank of India being aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge in W. P. No. 15896 of 1996, dated February 9, 1999 has preferred this writ appeal.

(2.) THE facts very briefly are: the respondent was working as a clerk with the appellant-Bank. He remained absent continuously from March 28, 1994. The respondent was served with a notice on november 22, 1994 giving him time of 30 days to report for duty and explain the cause for his unauthorised absence. This notice was given to the respondent under the terms of the Bipartite settlement governing the service conditions of the staff. In spite of service of notice the respondent failed to report for duty within the stipulated time. He also did not submit any explanation for his unauthorised absence. Accordingly, the appellants removed him from the rolls.

(3.) AGGRIEVED by his removal from service the respondent challenged the endorsement issued to him by the Bank treating him as having abandoned the service with the Bank in w. P. No. 15896 of 1996.