RAMACHANDRA S AMONKAR Vs. BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two cases raise common and inter-connected issues and, therefore, by consent of the parties, they are disposed of by a common judgment. In fact, the writ petition appears to be a continuation of the cause of action from where the appeal stops.

(2.) THE material facts which are necessary for deciding both the appeal and the writ petition are as under:

(3.) THE appellant joined the respondent no. 1 - Bank as an officer some times in the year 1962, even prior to the nationalisation of banks, which came about sometime in the year 1970. Some time in October 1988 the appellant was posted as Chief Manager, Singapore branch of the Respondent Bank. He came back to India on March 7, 1992 on the ground that: his son was suffering from muscular dystrophy. On July 3, 1992 the appellant gave a notice of voluntary retirement. By a reply dated september 16, 1992 the General Manager of the Respondent No. 1-Bank declined to accept: the request for voluntary retirement. By his letter dated October 2, 1992 the appellant maintained that there was no question of acceptance of voluntary retirement, and under the above service regulations, at the expiry of the stipulated period, he would cease to be an employee. On October 1, 1992 the appellant was served with an order transferring him to branch at Bhopal. The appellant did not comply with the transfer order and therefore he was suspended from service. There was correspondence between the appellant and the respondent No. 1-Bank during the course of which the Respondent maintained its stand. Finally, the appellant filed Writ Petition No. 2568 of 1992 on November 19, 1992 before this Court seeking a direction from this Court to quash and set-aside the non-acceptance of his voluntary retirement as conveyed in the Bank's letter dated September 16, 1992 as also the suspension order dated October 1, 1992 served on him. By a judgment of the learned single judge dated March 31, 1995, the writ petition came to be dismissed as without merit and the rule granted therein was discharged. The appeal is directed against the said judgment of the learned single Judge.