C. KARUNAKARAN Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHORN of unnecessary details, the brief facts that are necessary for a disposal of the writ petition are as follows:

(2.) A Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent Bank where the sequence of events leading up to the orders impugned by the petitioner in the writ petition, has been narrated. It is, in particular, pointed out that the petitioner has been on a relentless crusade against the respondent Bank by challenging every order of transfer that was served on him and further, not attending to his work at the respondent bank despite leave not having been sanctioned to him. It is pointed out that the decision taken by the respondent Bank, as evidenced by Ext.P10, was inevitable in view of the fact that the petitioner had not chosen to present himself before the respondent Bank pursuant to Ext.P8 notice that was sent to him in terms of Rule 40 (3) of the State Bank of India Officers Service Rules. Ext.P15 order of the appellate authority is sought to be justified on the contention that the appellate authority had considered the case of the petitioner, as projected in the appeal preferred by him, and come to a finding that the petitioner was not even in a position to apply for leave or send an explanation to Ext.P8 notice send to him. These facts were taken into consideration for concluding that there was no valid reason for him not reporting for duty, or submitting any explanation to the notice, within the time granted to him under the notice.

(3.) ON a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the Bar, I note that pursuant to Ext.P12 judgment of this Court, the appellate authority was required to exercise the power available under Rule 40 (3) of the State Bank of India Officers Service Rules. The said Rule reads as under: -