K C KUMAR Vs. BHARAT OVERSEAS BANK LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the arguments of Mr. D. Hari Paranthaman, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and S. Ravindran, learned counsel appearing for M/s. T.S. Gopalan & Co., for the respondents and have perused the records.

(2.) THE petitioner was working as the Chief Manager in the Nungambakkam Branch of the first respondent from 01.8.2004 to 11.4.2006. He submitted his resignation letter dated 07.4.2006 to the first respondent through his branch. THE reason for resignation was stated to be compelling domestic and personal problems. Since the petitioner wanted to leave the service immediately, he also requested to waive the three months' notice period and to grant relief immediately. If the respondents are not willing to waive the notice period, he had requested that three months' salary in lieu of notice can be adjusted from the terminal benefits payable to him. Since there was no response till 11.4.2006, he handed over the charge to the Senior Manager of Nungambakkam Branch and intimated the said fact to the second respondent vide letter dated 12.4.2006.

(3.) THE first respondent filed a counter affidavit stating that the first respondent Bank is a only a Company registered under the Companies' Act 1956 and, therefore, no writ petition will lie against the said Bank. It was also stated that the service conditions of the petitioner, who was working as a Scale IV Officer are covered by the Bharat Overseas Bank Limited Officers' Service Rules and the resignation will have to be made only in terms of the Service Rules and, therefore, the petitioner's resignation was not accepted. On the contrary, the petitioner was given a charge sheet on 27.6.2006 and since the notice given by the petitioner was not sufficient, the respondents are entitled to continue the disciplinary action and that the writ petition itself was not maintainable against the first respondent. Subsequently, an additional counter affidavit was filed stating that the Chairman of the first respondent Bank demitted his office on 06.4.2006 and the Senior General Manager, who was the disciplinary authority, had decided to initiate disciplinary action against the petitioner and, therefore, his resignation letter dated 07.4.2006 was not considered.