MADA LOKESWARA PRASAD Vs. UCO BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Feeling aggrieved by order dated 26.04.2001 in W.P.No.15146 of 1991, whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, the writ petitioner filed the present writ appeal.

(2.) The facts leading to the filing of this writ appeal are summarized hereunder: The appellant joined the respondent, which is a nationalized Bank, as Clerk-Steno-Typist in the year 1980. The appellant applied for leave, which was sanctioned up to 30.01.1991. As the appellant failed to resume his duty, the respondent issued notices to him to report for duty. As the earlier notices did not yield any result, the respondent sent notice dated 09.03.1991 and a further reminder on 01.04.1991 requiring the appellant to report for duty. As those notices were returned undelivered, they were displayed on the notice board of the respondent's Divisional Office at Hyderabad. The respondent continued its efforts to impress upon the appellant to resume his duty by sending another notice dated 02.05.1991. The last paragraph of the said letter being pivotal to the dispute involved in this case is apt to be reproduced hereunder:

(3.) The appellant received the said letter and responded to the same vide his letter dated 18.05.1991, wherein he pointed out that as his house number was wrongly mentioned as 10-1-529/1 instead of 10-1-629/1, the delay occurred in his receiving the said letter. The appellant stated in the said letter that he posted letters dated 01.02.1991 and 01.04.1991 requesting for sanction of sick leave for two months from 30.01.1991 and also for extension of sick leave for another two months, as he was not keeping good health. He also stated that he was enclosing xerox copies of medical certificates, which were enclosed to the above mentioned leave applications and requested the respondent not to treat his leave as unauthorized absence. He promised that he should report for duty soon after his recovering from illness. On receipt of the said letter from the appellant, the Divisional Manager of the respondent Bank issued notice dated 22.06.1991. In the said notice it was mentioned that in continuation of the respondent's earlier letters they have sent letter dated 02.05.1991 bringing to the appellant's notice his unauthorized absence from duty for more than 90 days and informing him that he shall be deemed to have voluntarily vacated his post and shall cease to be in Bank's service. While mentioning that the appellant's leave record was highly irregular/unsatisfactory, as he was habitual in unauthorizedly absenting himself from duty frequently for long periods without submitting leave applications and obtaining prior sanction, the respondent stated that none of the appellant's alleged leave applications were received by it. The appellant was once again called upon to report to duty within 30 days from the date of receipt of the said letter and provide necessary evidence and satisfactory explanation for his unauthorized absence failing which the respondent shall be compelled to take further action in terms of para 17 of the 5th Bipartite Settlement (for short, "the Settlement").