T VENKATESWARLU Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner seeks to challenge the order passed by theState Bank of India dated 12-5-1988 wherein it is stated that in terms of paragraph XVI of the Bi-partite settlement dated 17-9-1984 the petitioner is deemed to have "voluntarily vacated" his service with effect from 9-5-1988.

(2.) The petitioner was working in the State Bank of India atVijayawada as a clerk from 1965. In 1983 the Bank started a Staff Co-operative Stores at Vijayawada and the petitioner was sent on deputation to the said Stores for two years as per the letter of the Bank dated 25-9-1983. Even though the deputation came to an end by 29-10-1985, the petitioner did not choose to report to duty in the Bank. In the Stores, there were certain allegations of misappropriation etc., against the petitioner to the tune of one lakh and odd which resulted in an enquiry. On receipt of report, proceedings for recovery of Rs. 1 lakh and odd were initiated. On, 1-1-1986 a special Officer was appointed to manage the affairs of the Stores. The petitioner absented from duty at the Branch office of the Bank from 29-10-1985 to 31-10-1986, 8-12-1986 to 13-12-1986 and 21-7-1987 to 31-7-1987. A charge sheet was issued on 1-3-1988 to the petitioner complaining that he had committed minor misconduct in terms of paragraph 521 (6) (a) of the Sastry Award read with paragraph 18.28 of the Desai Award for absenting from duties without submitting leave applications or submitting leave applications after availing leave. It is also stated that the petitioner's action in not replying to the letters is an act of wilful disobedience of the lawful and reasonable orders of his superiors-an act of gross misconduct in terms of paragraph 521 (4) (e) of the Sastry Award read with paragraph 18.28 of the Desai Award. The petitioner was called upon to submit his explanation. any, within seven days. Though Mr. V. Srinivas, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that an explanation has been submitted by the petitioner to the charge memo, it has not been placed before me.

(3.) The writ petitioner does not refer to the fact that the noticeregarding disciplinary action was withdrawn by the Bank and that a fresh notice was issued on 2-4-88 by the Bank asking the petitioner why he should not be deemed to have voluntarily resigned. After the above fact was revealed in the counter, the writ petitioner filed a rejoinder stating that he had also submitted a reply to the new show cause notice dated 2-4-1988, the reply bearing date 1-5-1988.