M N DORAISAMI Vs. BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a post-graduate in Mathematics with Statistics as special subject. In the year 1953 she was employed by the Reserve Bank. Later she resigned from the Reserve Bank and took up an officer's job with the Bank of India, the first respondent in or about 1961. By an order dated 30th October, 1968 she was transferred from Madras branch to the head office at Bombay. She made representations that in view of the fact that she has to attend on her aged parent at Madras, she may be retained in Madras. The head office after considering her request for retaining her in Madras, wrote back on 26th November, 1968 saying that she was specifically appointed as an officer in the Economics, Intelligence and Statistics Department of the Bank at Bombay, that her request for retention on two earlier occasions in May, 1964 and March, 1966 at Madras have been acceded to on, the alleged ground of domestic difficulties that it is no longer possible to consider her request for retention at Madras, that she was taken up in the Bank's services on much higher emoluments primarily for being utilised in the Bank's economic intelligence and statistics department which is functioning in Bombay, and that exigencies of the Bank's service re quire that she should proceed to Bombay and report for duty in the department for which she was appointed.

(2.) THEREAFTER the petitioner had been on leave on medical grounds up to 7th April, 1970. In the meanwhile, on 5th March, 1970 the first respondent sent a registered letter informing the petitioner that the Bank cannot grant further extension of the leave and that, therefore, she must join duty with in one month from the date of receipt of that letter, failing which it would be taken for granted that she had left the services of the Bank. The petitioner sent a reply on 15th March, 1970 stating that she is surprised to receive the said letter, that it was never her intention to leave the service of the Bank, that she has been asking for retention in Madras on compassionate grounds at the expiry of every leave period but it was a pity that the management has been directing her to join duty at Bombay and that having regard to her domestic inconvenience she may be permitted to join duty at Madras office after the expiry of the leave on 7th April, 1970. The petitioner was again told by the first respondent by a letter dated 25th April, 1970 that she must report for duty at Bombay within 15 days from the date of receipt of that letter as it is not possible for her retention at Madras on any ground and that if she fails to report for duty as required, it will be definitely taken for granted that she had left the service of the Bank. The petitioner instead of reporting for duty at Bombay as required, applied for extension of leave for a further period of 3 months from 6th May, 1970. The first respondent promptly informed the petitioner by an order dated 16th May, 1970 that no further leave could be granted to her, that as she did not report for duty as called upon in the letter dated 25th April, 1970 it was taken for granted that she had left the ser vices of the Bank and that, therefore, her services stood terminated.

(3.) THE petitioner thereafter filed appeal petitions to the Honorable Prime Minister on 7th July, 1970, to the Custodian of the Bank on 18th October, 1970 and to the Minister for Finance, Government of India on 5th July, 1971. In the above appeal petitions the petitioner was told that nothing could be done and that no case had been made out for reconsideration of the earlier decision. The last of the order passed by the first respondent is on 3rd January, 1972 rejecting the petitioner's request for reconsideration of the earlier decision. The petitioner has now approached the Court seeking to quash the order of termination dated 16th May 1970.