SAIBABU S Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner who was aged about 40 years at the time of passing the peculiar order of termination by the competent authority in exercise of his powers under Paragraph 22 of State bank of India Officers (Determination of Terms and Conditions of Service) Order, 1979 (in short 'the Order) is before this Court seeking for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the same in which termination order it has been illegally declared as he has voluntarily abandoned/voluntarily resigned from service with effect from November 5, 1990 and further sought for a direction declaring that, he has been deemed to be in continuous service as he has never resigned or abandoned the services urging the following legal contentions: the petitioner belongs to ST (Kondakapu ). He joined the services of the respondent Bank on december 28, 1974. He has served in the different circles of the respondent-Bank in its different branches. He had rendered 18 years of continuous service and has got unblemish service record. The first respondent-Bank is a premier Bank in India. It has employed 1000s of employees throughout the country and it is governed by the provisions of the State Bank of India Act, 1955 (in short 'the Act' ). Therefore, it is an "authority" under Article 12 of the Constitution of India amenable to the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. At Paragraph 4 of the writ Petition, it is stated that, when he was working at Bidar Branch he developed server back pain, and he had undergone treatment from August 25, 1988 to July 15, 1989, He was in-patient in J. B. National Hospital, Hyderabad. He also suffered from high temperature infected by malaria. Further, he also suffered from chronic appendicitis and ultimately he had undergone operation on May 17, 1989. Further, the petitioner was transferred from Bidar Branch to humanabad Branch. Due to illness he could not report to Humanabad Branch for which he had sent telegrams, that he was taking treatment at Hyderabad for illness and he would report for duty after recovery. He reported for duty on October 15, 1990 at the Humanabad Branch and worked upto November 5, 1990. When he developed temperature, the doctor advised him to take rest and accordingly petitioner sent a leave application on November 5, 1990 addressed to the regional Manager, Hubli Branch through Branch Manager, Humanabad Branch. It is stated, petitioner received a notice on December 18, 1990 from Humanabad Branch asking him to report for duty and give explanation for his absence. Petitioner contends that it was falsely mentioned in the letter that petitioner did not report for duty in response to the previous notice dated october 8, 1990 even though he had reported for duty on October 15, 1990 and worked upto november 5, 1990. It was also mentioned in that notice that if the petitioner did not report for duty, it would be presumed that he had voluntarily abandoned duty or resigned without giving requisite notice.

(2.) IT is contended that, when the notice was received the petitioner was seriously ill and was undergoing medical treatment. He sent telegram on December 28, 1990 requesting for extension of sick leave. He also sent a reply letter on December 28, 1990 stating that he was prevented from reporting to duty because he was suffering from jaundice and was treated by doctors. He has produced necessary certificate in this regard. He further requested for extension of sick leave from March 25, 1991. The Bank did not refuse to grant leave for the period from November 5, 1990 to June 15, 1991 till the date of filing of this petition. The Bank issued one more notice on may 3, 1991 directing the petitioner to report for duty within three days failing which it would be presumed that he had 'voluntarily abandoned his duties or resigned from service without giving notice. " The petitioner states that he had sent reply telegram to this notice on May 8, 1991 a true copy of which is also produced by the petitioner to the effect that, that he would report for duty by the month end as his mother was hospitalised. Petitioner also telephoned to the Branch manager, Humanabad Branch on May 17, 1991, the Branch Manager informed him to report only to the Regional Manager, Region III, State Bank of India, Hubli Zonal Office. The petitioner therefore went to Hubli to report for duty to the Regional Manager, Region III on June 17, 1991, but, the Regional Manager did not give him proper hearing and asked him to put in writing whatever he wanted to say and did not permit him to report for duty. It is further stated that, at this stage, the petitioner went to the Bank's Medical Officer on June 17, 1991 and got examined and further, the Medical Officer issued fitness certificate. Thereafter, the petitioner received a letter dated September 24, 1991 from the Chief General Manager stating that petitioner did not respond to the notices issued to him as referred to above,

(3.) THE petitioner is seeking the relief on various ground particularly, the action of the respondent-Bank in presuming that the petitioner had voluntarily abandoned his services or voluntarily resigned from his services from November 5, 1990 eventhough he has submitted medical certificates, telegraphic and telephonic communications regarding his sickness and various requests for leave and extension of leave and not permitting him to report for duty is manifestly illegal and malafide. The act of the Bank in presuming that the petitioner voluntarily abandoned or voluntarily resigned is untenable unjust and unsustainable in law. Further, the action of the Bank is violative of principles of natural justice as the Bank did not issue any show-cause notice nor conducted any enquiry for the alleged absence in accordance with the service rules of the Bank. Thereby it had deprived the petitioner the reasonable opportunity of referring to all the leave application medical certificates, telegrams. The petitioner prays for grant of relief on the ground that the impugned order is illegal and void.