RUTH FURTADO Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition, the petitioner, who was working as a Special Assistant in the respondent State Bank of India, has challenged the communication dated 27th June 2001, issued by the respondent Bank, whereby the petitioner was called upon to submit her resignation with effect from the day on which she was declared elected by the Election Authority, failing which, it was mentioned in the said letter that, her undertaking would be treated as a letter of resignation.

(2.) THE brief facts are that the petitioner, who was an employee in the respondent Bank for the last several years as a Cashier and as a Special Assistant at the relevant time had applied to the respondent Bank for permission to contest at the elections to the Panaji Municipal Council, which was scheduled to be held some time in March 2001. Thereupon, the respondent Bank had directed the petitioner to give an undertaking. Accordingly, the petitioner had given an undertaking on 22nd February 2001 addressed to the Branch Manager of the respondent Bank mentioning therein that she had undertaken that her contesting in the elections would not interfere with her duties in the Bank and that she would also not take undue advantage of her position in the Bank. In the said undertaking dated 22nd February 2001 the petitioner had also stated as under:-

(3.) IN accordance with the No Objection Certificate granted by the respondent Bank, the petitioner had contested the aforesaid Panaji Municipal Council Election and was duly declared elected as a Municipal Councillor on 27th March 2001 from Ward No.9 of the said Municipal Council. Thereafter, the petitioner appears to have addressed a letter on 3rd April 2001 mentioning therein that one Ramesh Silimkhan has already filed a Writ Petition No. 37 of 2001 before this Court questioning the entire election process to the Panaji Municipal Council and that the petition was expected to come up for hearing on 9th April 2001. By the said letter, the petitioner has stated that if she were to submit her resignation then she may not be able to continue as an employee and also, in view of the aforesaid petition, she may not be able to continue as a Municipal Councillor. Under these circumstances, the petitioner has mentioned in the said letter, that her letter dated 22nd February 2001 should not be acted upon and the same should not be construed as a letter of resignation. Under these circumstances, by the aforesaid letter dated 3rd April 2001, the petitioner had requested the respondent Bank to treat the said communication dated 22nd February 2001 as withdrawn. It appears that the petitioner was also paid salary for the months of April and May 2001.By letter dated 3rd July 2001, the respondent Bank had issued a call letter to the petitioner to appear for a test for promotion to the post of Officer. In the meanwhile the petitioner had taken out an application in the aforesaid Writ Petition No. 37 of 2001 and got herself impleaded as a respondent in the said petition wherein the election process to the Panaji Municipal Council has been challenged. However, it may be noted here that when the above petition viz., Writ Petition No. 37 of 2001 was admitted by this Court, this Court made it clear that election to Ward 14 will be subject to the final decision in the above petition.