ROHIT DEWAN Vs. SYNDICATE BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a writ petition filed under the provision of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The subject matter relates to the alleged illegal termination of employment of the petitioner with effect from July 12, 2018. The petitioner was working with the Syndicate Bank. Apart from quashing and setting aside the impugned orders dated July 12, 2018 and July 13, 2018, the petitioner prays for reliefs in terms of prayer clause (b) which reads thus :-

(2.) The facts in a nutshell are stated hereafter. The petitioner was appointed by an appointment letter dated October 27, 2010 and joined the employment of the respondent no.3 - Bank on January 7, 2011 as a Senior Manager (FS). The petitioner's appointment was governed by the provisions of Syndicate Bank (Officers ') Service Regulations, 1979 (hereafter 'Regulations of 1979) and Syndicate Bank (Officers ') Employees Conduct Regulations, 1976 (hereafter 'Regulations of 1976). The petitioner was selected as a specialist officer (Forex) and was posted at the Foreign Exchange Processing Centre, New Delhi. On September 27, 2011, the petitioner was transferred to the South Block, New Delhi and was in-charge of handling foreign exchange transactions. Thereafter, on October 3, 2011 the petitioner was transferred again to the International Banking Division at New Delhi. The petitioner was confirmed in the employment of the bank as a Senior Manager with effect from January 7, 2012. Thereafter, the petitioner was posted at different stations on transfer. On December 5, 2017 the petitioner was appointed to work at London Branch of the bank and the clearance in respect of the said appointment was received from the Ministry of Finance sometime in January 2018. The petitioner made an application for visa. By an e-mail dated February 23, 2018, the petitioner expressed his intention to travel from India, that is, from March 5, 2018.

(3.) The petitioner submitted his resignation from service to the bank on April 13, 2018 due to personal/family issues and requested that he may be relieved latest by June 30, 2018 after adjusting the terminal benefits payable to him. The resignation letter was received by the bank on April 13, 2018 itself. The said letter was forwarded by the Assistant General Manager to the personal sec. of the regional office of the bank viz. respondent no.1. By letter dated April 27, 2018, the petitioner requested the bank to reduce the period of notice or waive the notice period for 12 days so that the admission of his children could be made on time. Vide a letter dated May 31, 2018, the petitioner requested the bank to permit him to continue him in service till July 12, 2018, that is, till completion of the notice period from the date of resignation. The Deputy General Manager of the bank by the letter dated May 31, 2018 recommended permission to relieve the petitioner on July 12, 2018 on completion of three months notice period instead of being relieved on June 30, 2018. By a letter dated June 20, 2018 issued by the Regional Office (respondent no.1), the petitioner was informed by the Deputy General Manager, that his resignation letter dated April 13, 2018 and request for being relieved on July 12, 2018 had been accepted by the bank and that he would stand relieved from the services of the bank on July 12, 2018 as requested by the petitioner. The petitioner averred that the said letter dated June 20, 2018 was not conveyed to him. The petitioner, by a letter dated June 30, 2018 withdrew his resignation letters dated April 13, 2018 and May 31, 2018 and requested that the said letters be treated as withdrawn and he be permitted to continue in the services of the bank. The said letter was received by the respondent - bank on July 3, 2018 much before the stipulated notice period. According to the petitioner, the request for withdrawal of the resignation letter was unconditional. Thereafter, by another letter dated July 3, 2018, the petitioner reiterated his request for withdrawal of his resignation. The Assistant General Manager of the bank recommended to the personal sec. of the respondent no.1-bank that the request of the petitioner for withdrawal of the resignation be considered favourably. On July 6, 2018 the respondent no.1-bank issued a letter of allotment of bank owned/bank leased official quarters to the petitioner at Andheri (East), Mumbai. By a letter dated July 9, 2018 issued by the respondent no.1-bank, the petitioner was informed by the Deputy General Manager that the competent authority of the respondent no.1-bank accepted the withdrawal of the resignation and has permitted the petitioner to continue in service of the bank and pursuant thereto the petitioner has worked. The petitioner, however, received a memorandum dated July 12, 2018 issued by the respondent no.3-the General Manager, Syndicate Bank informing him that he would stand relieved after the office hours on July 12, 2018 on his resignation from the services of the respondent - bank. The petitioner received an email on July 13, 2018 from the respondent no. 3 and a letter dated July 12, 2018 from the respondent no.2 - Deputy Regional Manager informing that the competent authority had not accepted the withdrawal of resignation and he would stand relieved from the service of the respondent - bank on completion of notice period dated July 12, 2018. Hence the cause for filing this writ petition.