RAVINDER SINGH ACHREJA Vs. VIJAYA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner/employee seeks quashing of the penalty order dated 9.10.1998 imposing the penalty of compulsory retirement on the petitioner, passed on account of continuous unauthorized absence of the petitioner from duty, and which absence continued till passing of the impugned order. The impugned penalty order dated 9.10.1998 was preceded by the report of the Enquiry Officer dated 16.7.1998, and the chargesheet dated 30.12.1996 issued to the petitioner. The appeal filed by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority was rejected vide order dated 30.3.1999. The petitioner, therefore, seeks setting aside of the orders dated 9.10.1998 and 30.3.1999 and claims reinstatement in service and all consequential benefits.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the petitioner joined the services of the respondent no.1-bank on 5.3.1976. During his service, the petitioner suffered physical disability with regard to both his lower limbs and therefore, he after taking sanctioned leave underwent two surgeries in USA. The hip replacement surgeries were performed on 12.10.1993 and 21.4.1994. The petitioner thereafter joined his duties on 23.1.1995, however, he again applied for medical leave from 1.5.1995 to 30.5.1995. By an application dated 12.4.1995, the petitioner sought preponement of leave period from 15.4.1995 to 15.5.1995, and the leave was thereafter sought to be extended for a total period of 89 days ending on 12.7.1995. The petitioner around 12.4.1995, without waiting for sanctioning of the leave, proceeded to USA claiming requirement of medical treatment in terms of the certificate dated 2.4.1995 issued by one Dr. Sudhir Kumar which prescribes that the petitioner had to report to the orthopedic surgeon who had conducted his hip replacement surgeries. This certificate dated 2.4.1995 was given by the said Dr. Sudhir Kumar after the petitioner had fallen down from stairs. The certificate of Dr. Sudhir Kumar besides asking the petitioner to report to the orthopedic surgeon, also advices rest and to avoid climbing of stairs or lifting weights. The petitioner by his subsequent application dated 21.1.1996 (i.e about 8 months after first application dated 12.4.1995) again applied for extension of the leave up to 18.7.1996 i.e the leave was sought to be taken for about one year from 12.7.1995 to 18.7.1996. Be it noted that the only leave period which was sanctioned to the petitioner in this period from 12.4.1995 to 21.1.1996 was for a period of 89 days commencing from 15.4.1995 and ending on 12.7.1995. Rest of the period of the leave taken by the petitioner was without any sanction having been granted. The third application which was filed by the petitioner for continuation of his leave for 3-6 months is dated 15.5.1996. During this period, the employer/respondent no.1 had written letters to the petitioner to resume duty and these letters are dated 26.9.1995, 23.11.1995, 15.4.1996 and 13.6.1996. By these letters, the petitioner was also informed by the respondent no.1-bank to report back immediately to duty. The petitioner was also asked to file an affidavit that he was not earning in USA as also information regarding the source of his income for meeting the expenditure of the stay in USA. The bank also called upon the petitioner to submit leave applications supported by the medical certificates in support of his treatment at USA.

(3.) The fact of the matter is that the petitioner, right from 12.4.1995 till today has not returned back from USA. The petitioner has not joined his duties with the respondent no.1 even after the passing of the orders by the Disciplinary Authority.