S VEERAMANI Vs. CHAIRMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petition has been filed challenging the proceedings of the respondents wherein the petitioner has been made to lose his lien over the post on the ground that he was absent for duty from 28.04.2007 onwards.

(2.) IT is the case of the petitioner that he has been working as a Junior Assistant with the respondents from 01.12.2004. When an order of transfer was issued on 26.04.2007, the petitioner gave a representation to retain him at Chennai instead of Namakkal Branch on the ground of his ill health. However, the said request was not considered and under those circumstances, the petitioner was constrained to file a writ petition before this Honourable Court. The said writ petition was dismissed giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the respondents by making representation.

(3.) PER contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the power under Regulation No,22 (15) of Repco Bank, Clerical and Sub-ordinate Staff Service Regulation, 1994 is automatic and therefore, the question of conducting an enquiry or issuing show cause notice presiding the order forfeiting the benefit of the petitioner over the post does not arise. The learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that inasmuch as the first respondent is confirming the order of the second respondent there is no necessity for giving reasons for dismissing the appeal.