A JAYACHANDRAN Vs. INDIAN BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this writ petition seeks for the issuance of a writ of certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to Proc.TZOVGAS 211,055 dated 24.4.1996 on the file of the respondent and to quash the same.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as a clerk in the respondent bank on 4.12.1977. According to him while he was in service in the Pudur Branch of the respondent bank, he applied for sick leave through telegram dated 8.12.1995 requesting leave from 4.12.1995 onwards. The proof for sending such telegram is filed by the petitioner in the typed set of papers. However, the petitioner was issued with a show cause notice dated 7.3.1996 calling upon him to report for duty within 30 days from the date of receipt of the said notice, failing which, it would be deemed that the petitioner had voluntarily retired from service in terms of Clause 17(a) of the Fifth Bipartite Settlement dated 10.4.1989. Though an explanation was given by enclosing a medical certificate vide letter of the petitioner dated 12.03.1996, the petitioner was directed to appear before the Regional Medical Board at Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai on 24.4.1996. The petitioner appeared before the Medical Board, but he was not examined physically. The Medical Board opined that the medical certificates issued for the period from 4.12.1995 to 31.3.1996 is not justified for want of documentary evidence in support of the disease and the treatment. The Medical Board further opined that the petitioner is fit for resuming duty from 3.4.1996. In spite of the same, by the impugned order dated 24.04.1996, the petitioner was informed that he was deemed to have retired voluntarily from service in terms of the provisions of Clause 17(A) of the Bipartite Settlement dated 10.4.1989.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would challenge the order on the ground that in the given circumstances, application of Clause 17(a) of the Settlement is totally unwarranted and out side the scope of the settlement and only in order to bye pass the usual procedure of issuance of show cause notice, conduct of enquiry and passing of final orders, the said clause has been issued. The said Clause is applicable only when an employee has unauthorisedly absented from duty without applying leave and when explanation is called for, no explanation is submitted. When the petitioner had submitted the explanation for his unauthorised leave, invoking Clause 17(a) is impermissible. He would also contend that in any case, before taking the action of voluntarily retiring a person from service, the respondent should give a notice to the employee calling upon him to report for duty within 30 days from the date of the notice stating inter alia the grounds or coming to the conclusion that the employee has no intention of joining duty and furnishing necessary evidence. The notice dated 7.3.1996 is silent about the ground on the conclusion arrived at by the respondent bank as to the intention of the employee in not joining the duty. The said notice is also bereft of the details as to the evidence for such conclusion.