PRAMILA DAVID Vs. GENERAL MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was an employee of Syndicate Bank. Between 23.05.1994 and 30.06.1998 she was working as Assistant Manager at Vellore Branch. According to her, on several occasions during the said period, she had severe set back in her health. Apart from that her brother met with an accident and he was paralysed and so she had to take care of her brother. In those circumstances, the petitioner claims that she availed leave on medical grounds. She would more specifically state that she submitted leave applications on 19/3/1996, 8/7/1996, 4/10/1996, 26/10/1996, 23/11/1996, 23/12/1996, 15/1/1997, 17/4/1997, 20/7/1997 and 5/8/1997 along with medical certificates for the period between 08.12.1997 to 30.12.1997; 23.03.1998 to 30/3/1998 and 11/5/1998 to 30.06.1998. She further claims that all her leave applications were duly recommended by the Branch Manager and forwarded to the competent authority. But, according to her, no order was passed by the competent authority on the said leave applications. While so, a charge memorandum dated 22.12.1998 was issued alleging that she was unauthorisedly absent for a total number of 536 days during the following periods:- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_1207_TLMAD0_2010Html1.htm</FRM> The petitioner , thereafter, submitted a detailed explanation denying the above allegations. However, an enquiry was ordered into the said charges. The enquiry officer held that the petitioner was unauthorisedly absent and the charges were proved. Accepting the enquiry officer's report dated 25/10/1999, the disciplinary authority by his order dated 24/11/1999 imposed a major punishment of compulsory retirement with immediate effect. Against the said order, she preferred an appeal on 10.01.2000 to the General Manager (P) who is the appellate authority under Regulation 17 of the Syndicate Bank Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976. The appellate authority dismissed the said appeal by order dated 12.02.2000. It is the said punishment which is under challenge in this writ petition.

(2.) It is submitted by the writ petitioner that the Zonal Officer, Chennai by order dated 7/10/1997 has treated the period of absence between 30/10/1996 and 12/9/1997 (473 days) as unauthorised. Similarly, by order dated 3/3/1998 yet another period of absence between 8/12/1997 and 30/12/1997 (23 days) was also treated as unauthorised. By order dated 03.04.1998 the period of absence between 23/3/1998 to 30/3/1998 (7 days) was treated as unauthorised. Finally, by order dated 31.07.1998, the period of absence between 11/5/1998 and 30/6/1998 (51 days) was treated as unauthorised. By the proceedings of the Regional Officer dated 8/9/1998, it was informed to the petitioner that the total period of absence of 536 days was treated as unauthorised. While treating the absence period as unauthorised, the petitioner was informed as follows:-

(3.) Based on the above, it is now submitted that cut in the salary and other allowances for the absence period treating the said period as non service period, postponement of annual increment / stagnation in increment, non counting of the said period as service period for terminal benefits / pension would all amount to punishment. Thus, according to the petitioner, she had already been imposed with appropriate punishment for misconduct of absence from duty. While so, according to the petitioner, for the very same misconduct, issuance of fresh charge memorandum and imposition of punishment for the same would amount to double jeopardy. It is mainly on this ground the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would advance his argument.