HEMANT TYAGI Vs. UCO BANK & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There has been default in appearance on the part of the respondent Bank yesterday as well as today, though the case was called out twice on each occasion. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length, and proceed to decide the writ petition.

(2.) This writ petition assails the communication dated 17th May, 2012, issued to the petitioner by the respondent Bank (hereinafter referred to as "the Bank"), to the extent the said communication requires payment, by the petitioner of Rs. 2 lakhs, stated to be "bond money" for leaving the services of the Bank before completion of two years. The terms of the letter of appointment of the petitioner, dated 11th August, 2011, have been invoked by the Bank, to support the said demand.

(3.) The facts relevant to adjudication of this dispute may briefly be stated as under :