(1.) The questions involving in these matters being identical, they were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
(2.) On September 27, 1973 the petitioner was appointed with respondent Bank on a permanent basis. The petitioner was promoted from time to time and in the year 1996 he was holding the post of the Deputy Chief Manager in the General Administration Department of the respondent.
(3.) In the year 1993, the Oriental Bank of Commerce Employees Pension Scheme, 1993 (hereinafter called "thd scheme") came into being. In 1995, the respondents, in exercise of their powers under Section 19 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1990 made regulations known as the Oriental Bank of Commerce (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995 (hereinafter called and referred to as "the Regulations" for short). The petitioner who was in the service of the Bank at that time exercised his option to become a member of the Bank's Pension Scheme. As per the provisions of the scheme, the petitioner authorized the Bank/Trustee of the Contributory Provident Funk to transfer the entire Bank's share of the contribution to the Provident Fund along with entire interest accrued thereon to the credit of the pension fund. This was done subsequently under this scheme and the petitioner was required to contribute to the Provident Fund Account at the rate determined by the Bank from time to time. In terms of the Scheme, however, the Bank was not to make any contribution to the petitioner's Provident Fund account from 1st November, 1993. On November 7, 1996, the petitioner applied to the respondent No.1 Bank for long leave as he had to. take his wife to New Zealand for special medical treatment. On November 14, 1996, respondent No.1 permitted the petitibner to avail 112 days privilege leave, followed by; 253 days extra ordinary leave, on loss of pay and allowances for a total period of one year, for going to New Zealand with effect from 15.1.1997. It was stated in the letter sanctioning leave that the petitioner could not be entitled to the facility of residence, facility of telephone at residence, reimbursement of entertainment expenses and other benefits attached to the post for the period of loss of pay, with effect from 7.5.1997. On December 15, 1997, the petitioner sought extension of leave informing the respondent that he was not in a position to resume his duties, as his wife was under medical treatment and there was no one else to look after her. As her treatment was allegedly prolonging, the petitioner requested the Bank to extend his leave for a further period of one year. The petitioner along with the said letter enclosed the medical certificate from the doctor attending his wife. On February 17, 1998T respondent informed the petitioner that the request for extension of leave for a further period of one year had not been acceded to and he was advised to resume his duties latest by 1.3.1998 failing which the matter would be referred to the disciplinary authorities for taking suitable action. On April 1, 1998, the petitioner again requested the respondent bank to extend his leave for another year beginning from January 15, 1998 and prayed that his case may be considered sympathetically on humanitarian ground as he had to look after his wife who was undergoing medical treatment in New Zealand. But the respondent bank stated by its letter dated 1st May 1998 conveyed that they had not received any reply to their letter dated 17th February 1998 and advised the petitioner to resume duties immediately failing which disciplinary action shall be initiated. On 18th May 1998, the petitioner informed respondent No.l that a letter dated 1st April 199J8 had been sent in response to their letter dated 17th February 1998. The petitioner enclosed a copy of the said letter dated 1st April 1998 along with the post office receipt. The petitioner further requested the said respondent to consider his application for extension of leave on humanitarian grounds, as it was necessary to look after his wife in New Zealand. On 24th July 1998, respondent bank informed the petitioner that it had been decided to initiate an enquiry under Regulation 6 of the Regulations to enquire into charge levelled against him by a memorandum dated 8th June 1998 which was allegedly not received by the petitioner. The said letter further stated that he would be informed about the date, time and venue of the inquiry by the inquiring authority.