B.VARADARAJAN Vs. DEPUTY MANAGING DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appellant/Petitioner has preferred the present Writ Appeal as against the order dated 08.03.2010 in W.P.No.17258 of 2008 passed by the Learned Single Judge.

(2.) THE Learned Single Judge, while passing orders in W.P.No.17258 of 2008 on 08.03.2010, has, among other things, observed that '.. Therefore, the Petitioner should have known his position, when he moved a writ petition No.8968/2008 before this Court with a prayer to issue a direction to the respondents to accept his application for voluntary retirement dated 28.08.2003. The respondents/bank has not accepted his voluntary retirement and, therefore, the argument of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the respondents/bank cannot take any disciplinary action, since his application seeking voluntary retirement is deemed to have been accepted is not sustainable. Further, after the rejection of his application for voluntary retirement, the petitioner must have understood that when his request for voluntary retirement was not legally accepted by the respondents, he should have reported for duty and failure to which report for duty has been viewed by respondents-Bank and therefore, the same, cannot be said to be malafide action on the part of the Bank. Therefore, the argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is not sustainable in law and the ultimate contention of the petitioner that no fresh application is required for seeking voluntary retirement is also not acceptable in law and the blame casted by him on the respondents bank for not releasing the service benefits does not merit acceptance' and resultantly, dismissed the writ petition without costs.

(3.) IT is the further contention of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Petitioner that the Petitioner has reiterated that the withdrawal letter dated 20.02.2004 has been obtained by the Respondents/Bank officials, more particularly, the 3rd Respondent by coercion.