SMITA N TRIVEDNEE Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule heard forthwith.

(2.) From the pleadings on record, some facts may be set out. The petitioner joined the services of respondent No. 1 and was confirmed with effect from 2nd January, 1974. During the course of the employment, petitioner has been transferred to various branches. The petitioner, with effect from 1st July, 2003 was posted as an officer at Mumbai, main branch at the International Banking Division of the respondent No. 1. The petitioner applied for Privilege Leave for the period from 1st September, 2003 to 27th September, 2003, which was sanctioned as she was to be operated on right eye, and the concerned doctor had advised her to take rest for at least three weeks. The petitioner thereafter informed the respondent No. 1 that she had undergone off pump coronary Artery Bye-pass surgery on 4th October 2003. The relevant documents in support thereof were furnished by her and she was advised to take rest upto 28th December, 2003. The petitioner did not report to her duties till 27th January, 2004.

(3.) From the affidavit-in reply, the following averment can be set out. The petitioner to seek leave with effect from 9th February, 2004 to 31st July, 2004, had applied by application for leave dated 3rd August, 2004 to the respondent No. 1. The said application was not sanctioned by the concerned authorities. The respondent No. 1 intimated the petitioner vide letter dated 5th June, 2004, that she has been remaining absent unauthorisedly from duty since 1st January, 2004 and that she had not submitted any proper leave application duly supported with medical report in support of the same, and was advised to report to the duty immediately. In spite of receipt of the said letter, the petitioner did not join. It is also set out that the respondent No. 1 further intimated the petitioner by the letter dated 22nd July, 2004 that her leave has not been sanctioned and called upon her to report to duty immediately. According to the respondent No. 1, the petitioner applied for leave for the period from 1st August, 2004 to 31st December, 2004 by leave application dated 3rd January 2005. The said application was not supported by appropriate medical report, justifying the leave for long duration; as such the application was not sanctioned by the respondent No. 1. The petitioner thereafter vide her letter dated 21st March, 2005 intimated the respondent No. 1 that she was fit for reporting for duty, which was supported by the necessary fitness certificate. The respondent No. 1 informed the petitioner by the letter dated 24th March 2005 that she had been placed at the disposal of Chief Manager, Government Accounts Division and was called upon to report to the concerned officer. According to respondent No. 1, the petitioner attended her duties from 24th March, 2005 to 21st April, 2005.