TILAK RAJ MULLICK Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition the petitioner -Sh. Tilak Raj Mullick seeks the relief that the respondent no.1/State Bank of India should take him back in service without any break in service and with consequential entitlement to pensionary benefits. Petitioner has also prayed for quashing of the actions of the respondent -bank in treating the petitioner as having vacated the job voluntarily and which is so stated by the respondent -bank in its letter dated 19.4.1985. Petitioner during the hearing has confined the relief claimed to he grant of pensionary benefits inasmuch as the petitioner has crossed the age of superannuation and thus cannot get reinstatement.

(2.) THE case as set up in the writ petition is that petitioner had taken leave to visit his ailing mother in New York where he met with an accident and consequently petitioner applied for extension of leave by his application dated 21.1.1985. The respondent no.1 -bank allowed permissible leave but since the petitioner did not thereafter re -join, the bank wrote a letter dated 19.4.1985 to the petitioner that since all leaves of the petitioner were exhausted the petitioner should therefore report for duty within 7 days from the date of receipt of the letter otherwise it shall be presumed that petitioner had vacated the job voluntarily. On receiving this letter, petitioner by his letter dated 29.6.1985 sought voluntary retirement from the bank. Petitioner claimed medical grounds for seeking voluntary retirement. Respondent no.1 -bank by its letter dated 6.3.1986 informed the petitioner for arranging of medical check -up as per his request seeking voluntary retirement on medical grounds, and to which petitioner responded to by his letter dated 18.3.1986 suggesting the dates in April, 1986 as being available for the medical check up. Petitioner pleads that in spite of agreeing for medical examination, respondent no.1 -bank however did not undertake the medical examination of the petitioner. Petitioner then after about 4 1/2 years wrote to the respondent no.1 -bank on 15.7.1990 that he had recovered from his illness and therefore he wanted to re -join his service with the bank. On this request being made by the petitioner, the respondent no.1 -bank informed him that he is deemed to have vacated the job voluntarily on 19.4.1985. Subsequent correspondence was thereafter entered into, however, the crux of the matter which has resulted is the issue between the parties as argued before me that whether petitioner is deemed to have voluntarily vacated his job w.e.f 19.4.1985 as contended by the respondent no.1 -bank.

(3.) IT is contended on behalf of the petitioner that in the case of Jai Shanker (supra) the rule in question was similar to the Rule 92 which is relied upon by the respondent no.1 -bank in the present case. It is argued that the Constitution Bench in the case of Jai Shanker (supra) has clearly held that the constitutional protection against removal from service without following the principles of natural justice cannot be taken away. It is also argued that in para 6 the Supreme Court has said that even if there is a rule to remove an employee without following the principles of natural justice yet such employee should not be removed without following the principles of natural justice.