UMESH KAUSHIK Vs. INDIAN BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was working as a Senior Manager in Hauz Khas branch of the Indian Bank when he felt he had had enough of it thus calling it a day. Citing personal reasons, he gave three months notice of his intention to resign with effect from the date of the letter which was dated June 01, 2005. It was addressed to the Chairman and Managing Director of the Bank at Chennai and was in terms of Regulation 20 (2) of the Indian Bank (Officers) Service Regulations, 1979. Simultaneously, he also sent a letter addressed to the Trustees, Indian bank Employees Provident Fund, irrevocably authorizing them to adjust all his liabilities to the Bank from his terminal benefits. On the same day the Assistant Manager of Hauz Khas branch forwarded his letter to the General Manager, Circle Office, New Delhi, for favourable consideration. Two days thereafter, i. e. , on June 03, 2005, the general Manager, Circle Office forwarded it to the Head Office at Chennai, recommending its acceptance. Soon thereafter, the petitioner seems to have become a little more impatient. In his resolve to bring the matter to an end at the earliest, on June 29, 2005 he sent another communication to the Chairman and managing Director of the Bank showing his inability to complete the three months notice period as required under Regulation 20 (2) of the Indian Bank (Officers) Service Regulations, 1979. He said, he was prepared to remit the salary of the balance period of notice not served by him and that consequently, his resignation dated June 01, 2005 be accepted with immediate effect. However, it turned down to be a case of his proposing and the Bank disposing.

(2.) ON August 01, 2005 the General Manager, Circle Office wrote to the general Manager, Head Office that, "on perusal of the inspection report and the replies submitted by the branch, we observe that there is no major irregularity pending. We, therefore, recommend that the resignation submitted may be accepted as per rules. " Thereafter, on August 06, 2005, he also informed the chief Vigilance Officer at Chennai that no departmental proceeding was pending or contemplated against the petitioner and again recommended that the resignation be accepted as per the Rules. Despite the promptness shown by the assistant Manager, Hauz Khas branch and the General Manager, Circle Office in forwarding the resignation of the petitioner to the Head Office and despite also the General Manager having conveyed to the Chief Vigilance Officer at Chennai that neither any departmental case was pending or contemplated, nor any major irregularity was pending against him, the Head Office sat over the letter of resignation. While the petitioner was waiting for a response and hoping it to be favourable, the Bank seemed to be in no hurry. Ultimately, it did respond. This was on August 31, 2005. The petitioner was informed that his request dated June 01, 2005 had been declined by the competent authority. The letter was bereft of any reason. On the very next day of receiving the said communication, the petitioner wrote back to the chairman and Managing Director, requesting him to reconsider the matter, followed by another letter dated September 06, 2005, informing him that he was relinquishing office with effect from the date of the letter and also complaining to him that the decision of the Bank declining to accept his resignation without any reason was in contravention of the Service Regulations governing him. In the same communication, he also made a request to settle his dues including encashment of unavailed privilege leave and to credit the same to his Saving Account No. 408303774 with the Indian Bank, Hauz Khas Branch after deduction of dues found payable by him to the Bank. The letter elicited no response. Hence, he sent a reminder dated January 21, 2006. It too met with silence which was broken only through letter dated August 07, 2006. It was from one Shri X Joseph Anthuvan, informing him that he had been appointed as an inquiry Officer to conduct an inquiry against him and calling upon him to appear before him on August 24, 2006 at 10. 30 a. m. at the premises of Indian Bank, Circle Office, New Delhi. On receipt of the said communication, the petitioner sent a registered letter to the inquiry Officer dated August 18, 2006 bringing to his notice that he had already resigned from the Bank vide his letter dated June 01, 2005 and in view thereof, internal disciplinary proceedings proposed to be conducted against him were illegal and not binding upon him. He, thus, called upon the Inquiry officer to desist from the so-called disciplinary proceedings. However, without prejudice to his said stand, he also complained that the charge-sheet had been framed against him without any preliminary inquiry and in any case, no charge-sheet had been made available to him. The next communication that the petitioner received from the Inquiry Officer was of September 22, 2006, in which he firstly made a mention of the failure on the part of the petitioner in appearing before him on August 24, 2006 and then went on to inform him that the next sitting was scheduled for October 09, 2006. He also enclosed a copy of the charge-sheet and a copy of the proceedings held on August 24, 2006. As per the copy of the charge-sheet, the Articles of charge framed against the petitioner were as under:-

(3.) FEELING aggrieved by the action of the bank in initiating disciplinary proceedings against him despite his having tendered his resignation and in not paying him his terminal benefits, the petitioner moved this Court by way of the present writ-petition, praying for the following reliefs:-