STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. GOVT OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is filed seeking to declare the Order No. L-12012/ 176/2003-IR (B-1) dated 10. 9. 2003 and Order No. L-12012/176/2004ir (B. 1) dated 21. 2. 2005 of the 1st respondent as illegal and arbitrary.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that the 3rd respondent who joined the bank in 1965 as Clerk and later deputed to manage the affairs of Staff co-operative Consumer Stores, Vijayawada, remained unauthorisedly absent from 29. 10. 1985 to 31. 10. 1986, 8. 12. 1986 to 13. 12. 1986 and 21. 7. 1987 to 31. 7. 1987. There were allegations of misappropriation of funds against the 3rd respondent and after an elaborate enquiry he was directed to pay an amount of Rs. 1,02,160-90 ps together with interest. Again he was unauthorisedly absent from duty from 1. 1. 1988 without any explanation and therefore he was treated as voluntarily vacated his service w. e. f. 9. 5. 1988 under Para XVI of the IV Bipartite settlement dated 17. 9. 1984 and accordingly notice was served on him on 2. 4. 1988, which was received by the 3rd respondent on 9. 4. 1988. But, he did not report for duty nor give any explanation. Therefore, notice dated 12. 5. 1988 was given intimating the 3rd respondent that his services were treated as voluntarily vacated and his name was removed from the muster rolls. Challenging the same, the 3rd respondent filed W. P. No. 10425 of 1988 and the same was dismissed on 16. 10. 1989. Against that, he filed W. A. No. 1739 of 1989 which was also dismissed on 14. 12. 1989. Then he filed Review W. A. M. P. No. 134 of 1990 and it was also dismissed and thus the above judgment has become final. However, the 3rd respondent had raised an industrial Dispute after lapse of 13 years questioning the very same impugned order dated 12. 5. 1988 and despite the objections from the petitioner herein as to its maintainability, the 1st respondent referred the said I. D. to the 2nd respondent for adjudication. Hence the present writ petition.

(3.) THE 3rd respondent filed counter-affidavit stating, inter alia, that the I. D. referred by the 1st respondent was between himself and the bank. The original schedule dated 10. 9. 2003 was later amplified in the corrigendum in view of the res judicata objection raised by the petitioner as a preliminary objection in which the Government has carefully formulated the points of dispute for adjudication. The action of respondent No. 1 is after perusal of the report from the A. L. C. (C), vijayawada which is an outcome of a tripartite meeting between himself, petitioner and the A. L. C. and that the action of the respondent no. 1 is well justified. Having accepted the order issued by the respondent No. 1 and accepted the designated C. G. I. T.-cum-Labour court and took part in its proceedings, the petitioner has no right to argue and object that the order of respondent No. 1 is illegal and unjustified. The other allegations made in the writ affidavit are denied.