DEVDAS RAO Vs. SYNDICATE BANK MANIPAL DAKSHINA KANNADA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER was a Deputy Divisional Manager in Syndicate Bank. He is before this Court primarily for a direction to the respondent-Bank to pay him full salary at the revised rates inclusive of all allowances from 6-3-1987 till the end of February 1989 and to quash letter bearing No. PD : PAS BNG : 196, dated 15-2-1989.

(2.) BRIEFLY the background facts are, while working as Deputy Divisional Manager, petitioner by his letter dated 6-12-1986 submitted an application to the General Manager of the Bank, seeking voluntary retirement with effect from 6-3-1987 as required under Clause 20 (2) of syndicate Bank (Officers) Service Regulations ('regulations' for short ). Bank inturn by its letter dated 7-1-1987 was pleased to inform the petitioner that his letter of resignation has been accepted with effect from 6-3-1987. Before the resignation could come into effect, Bank by its registered letter dated 4-3-1987 has informed the petitioner that the acceptance of petitioner's resignation by their letter dated 7-1-1987 has been kept in abeyance in view of the contemplated disciplinary proceed ings against him for certain acts of omissions and commissions said to have been committed by him while working as Deputy Divisional Manager in Bangalore. For the purpose of this case, I need notice what transpired between the parties in between 4-3-1987 till 15-2-1989, on which date, the Bank once again informed the petitioner that his application seeking voluntary /resignation had been accepted with effect from 6-3-1987 subject to fulfilment of certain conditions. Aggrieved by the action of the respondent-Bank in accepting petitioner's request for voluntary resignation retrospectively and further for payment of salary and allowances for the period 6-3-1987 till 15-2-1989, the officer/employee of the Bank is before this Court in a petition filed under Article 226 of the constitution.

(3.) RESPONDENTS have filed a lengthy counter statement resisting the relief sought for by the petitioner. They contend that by virtue of Clause 20 (3) of the Bank's Regulations and in view of the notice dated 19-2-1987 and the Bank's letter dated 4-3-1987, keeping the acceptance of petitioner's resignation from services of the Bank in abeyance, petitioner ought to have reported for duty but on his own did not report for duty nor attended the Bank with effect from 5-3-1987 on the mere assumption that he has been relieved from the services of the Bank by virtue of the letter dated 5-1-1987 and they further assert that since the petitioner did not report for duty with effect from 6-3-1987 and since he has not rendered any service to the Bank, he is not entitled for salary for period 6-3-1987 till 15-2-1989.