C K SURESH KUMAR Vs. INDIAN BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is an Ex -serviceman. He was appointed as Guard/Armed Guard in State Bank of India by Ext.P1 appointment letter dated 18.8.2011 on the terms and conditions set out therein. It was stipulated therein that he will be on probation for a period of six months with effect from the date of joining service. Pursuant to Ext.P1 appointment letter, the petitioner joined duty as Guard/Armed Guard in the Koonimedu branch of State Bank of India in the State of Tamil Nadu, on 24.8.2011.

(2.) THE petitioner is a permanent resident of Mahe in the Union Territory of Pondichery. While the petitioner was working as Guard/Armed Guard in State Bank of India, his name was forwarded by the Department of Sainik Welfare, Puducherry for recruitment of Armed Guard in Indian Bank, Mahe. Thereupon, the Chief Manager (Administration) in the Zonal Office of Indian Bank at Ernakulam sent Ext.P2 letter to the petitioner inviting him to appear for the physical fitness test and interview scheduled to be held on 4.10.2012 in the premises of Indian Bank at Mahe. He was also informed that he will have to submit two copies of the duly filled bio data at the time of interview. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner reported in Indian Bank, Mahe branch on 4.10.2012 and submitted a bio -data in the prescribed format wherein he had disclosed the fact that he is employed as Guard/Armed Guard in Koonimedu branch of State Bank of India.

(3.) AFTER the physical fitness test and interview were held, the petitioner was selected for appointment as Peon -cum -Armed Guard in the Mahe branch of Indian Bank. Ext.P3 letter of appointment dated 19.11.2012 was thereupon issued by the Zonal Manager in the Zonal Office of Indian Bank at Ernakulam. By that letter, he was directed to report for duty in the Mahe branch on 30.11.2012 together with all the documents listed therein. Upon receipt of Ext.P3 letter, as stated therein, the petitioner forwarded a duplicate copy of the appointment order duly signed by him to the Zonal Manager, Indian Bank on 27.11.2012 by registered post. The petitioner thereafter appeared before the second respondent (Branch Manager, Indian Bank, Mahe branch) and submitted Ext.P4 representation dated 30.11.2012 addressed to the Zonal Manager, Indian Bank, Ernakulam, requesting for 40 days' further time to join duty. In that letter he had stated that he is working as Guard/Armed Guard in State Bank of India, Koonimedu branch, that on being informed about his appointment in Indian Bank, the Manager, State Bank of India, Koonimedu branch informed him that the relieving order can be issued only after 30 days and therefore, he may be given a further period of 40 days to join duty. It is not in dispute that the second respondent received the original of Ext.P4 on 30.11.2012. The endorsement made by him on Ext.P4 as also the averments in paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit dated 1.4.2013 establish the said fact. Respondents 1 and 2 did not reject the petitioner's request for time to join duty or take the stand that by virtue of his appointment as Guard/Armed Guard in State Bank of India, he is ineligible to be appointed as Peon/Armed Guard in Indian Bank. They also did not sent a reply to the petitioner either granting his request in Ext.P4 or rejecting it. A few days later, to be exact on 27.11.2012, the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Koonimedu branch informed him as per Ext.P5 letter dated 27.12.2012 that his letter of resignation has been accepted by the competent authority and therefore, he will be relieved from the close of business on 27.12.2012. The petitioner has averred that after he was relieved from State Bank of India, he reported before the second respondent on 31.12.2012 and requested for permission to join duty, but the second respondent asked him to await orders from the higher authorities. The petitioner has further averred that he thereupon sent the original of Ext.P6 letter dated 31.12.2012 to the second respondent by registered post, requesting for permission to join duty as Peon/Armed Guard, that it was delivered to the second respondent on 2.1.2013, that shortly thereafter the petitioner received the original of Ext.P7 letter dated 4.1.2013 which was posted from Mahe only on 8.1.2013 informing him that as per Government of India guidelines he cannot be given the benefits available to Ex -servicemen, as he is already employed as Armed Guard in State Bank of India and therefore, the offer of appointment stands cancelled. The petitioner has averred that he thereupon submitted Ext.P9 representation dated 10.1.2013 to the Zonal Manager, Indian Bank, Ernakulam setting out the above facts and requesting him to reconsider his decision and to permit him to join duty. In the instant writ petition filed on 29.1.2013, the petitioner challenges Ext.P7 and seeks the following reliefs: -