PRATAP SINGH Vs. PUNJAB AND SIND BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner filed this writ petition challenging an order dated 14th May 1997 passed by the Disciplinary Authority ('DA) of Respondent No. 1 Punjab & Sind Bank (Bank) dismissing the Petitioner from service. During the pendency of the writ petition the Appellate Authority ('AA) dismissed the Petitioners appeal against the dismissal order by an order dated 19th March 2001. THE Petitioner was then permitted to amend the writ petition to challenge the said order as well. In addition the Petitioner had prayed for a mandamus to the Bank to release the gratuity rendered for the period between 1978 and 1995, leave encashment, interest on the provident fund amount and salary for 12 days between 1st and 12th August 1995.

(2.) THE Petitioner joined the services of Bank on 10th May 1978. On 12th August 1995 while serving as a Manager at Sri Ganganagar he addressed a letter to the General Manager at New Delhi tendering his resignation from the Bank with effect from that date. He further stated in the said letter that in terms of Regulation 20 of the Punjab & Sind Bank (Officers) Service Regulations 1982 (,,Regulations) he had deposited three months salary with the Bank. He also enclosed a photocopy of the cash deposit receipt. He, therefore, requested the Bank to accept his resignation with immediate effect and release his terminal benefits. THE Petitioner has also placed on record a copy of Office Order dated 12th August 1995 whereby the charge of security items were taken over from the Petitioner and he was asked to hand them over to one Mr. Jaswinder Singh Nadha another employee of the Bank.

(3.) ON 27th October 1995 another show cause notice was issued to the Petitioner by the Bank stating that he had not reported for duty at the Zonal Office in Jaipur despite having being transferred there by an order dated 14th August 1995. The Bank also informed that he would be discharged from the Bank only upon acceptance of his resignation by the competent authority. He was asked to show cause why further disciplinary action should not be taken against him for violation of Clause 13 (1) (2) of the Rules. The Petitioner replied on 10th November 1995 denying the above charge. He reiterated that he had already resigned from 12th August 1995 and sought release of the terminal benefits.