LAVLESH KUMAR MISHRA Vs. MADHYANCHAL GRAMIN BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Sec. 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal), Adhiniyam, 2005 is directed against the judgment of the Single Bench dtd. 6/1/2021, whereby the writ petition (W.P.No.3607/2018) filed by appellant Lavlesh Kumar Mishra has been dismissed. The appellant in the writ petition assailed the order dtd. 20/12/2017 (Annexure P/1) accepting his resignation dtd. 19/9/2017 and prayed for a further direction to the respondents No.1 to 4 to reinstate him in service and grant him salary with all the consequential benefits.

(2.) The facts as stated by the appellant are that he is an ex- serviceman. He was appointed on 21/11/2015 on the post of Office Assistant (Multipurpose) with the respondent-Madhyanchal Gramin Bank (A Joint Venture of the Government of India, State Bank of India and Government of Madhya Pradesh). On successful completion of probation period, he was confirmed on the aforesaid post vide order dtd. 17/6/2017. According to the appellant, while he was posted at Branch Baraundha, District Satna under the respondent No.4, the respondent No.5 Phool Chand Patel, who was a local politician and an old defaulter of the respondent Bank, came to the branch office with one Jageshwar Prasad, a beneficiary of a certain government scheme and pressurized the appellant to transfer money payable under that scheme to his account, having different name and particulars. The appellant advised him to get a new account opened in his name so that the money received under the government scheme could be transferred. The respondent No.5 however using his local influence pressurized the appellant to act against the Rules. When the appellant refused to oblige, he started shouting and abusing him and threatened him with dire consequences. The appellant reported the matter to the local Police Station on 21/8/2017 but due to political influence of the respondent No.5, the SHO of the Police Station did not lodge the FIR. The appellant then on 22/8/2017 submitted a written complaint to respondent No.4-Regional Manager of the Bank for taking appropriate action and giving him security and also reported the incident to the higher officials of the Bank i.e. respondents No.1 and 3 by e-mail. Thereafter, on 24/8/2017, the appellant detailing the checkered history of the respondent No.5 and his family members, submitted a representation to respondent No.4- Regional Manager of the Bank seeking due action in the matter. It was also mentioned by the appellant that even a criminal case on the basis of complaint filed by one Smt. Meena Chaurasiya for misappropriating the fund and illegal withdrawal of amount was registered against the respondent No.5. Despite all this, the respondents No.1 to 4 maintained sphinx like silence. Emboldened by their such attitude, the respondent No.5 openly started threatening the appellant on phone and otherwise.

(3.) The appellant thereafter submitted an application on 25/8/2017 to the respondent No.4- the Regional Manager of the Bank, seeking his transfer to any other Branch like Majhgawan, Kamadgiri or Paldev, but the respondent No.4 did not take any action. In order to overcome the pressure of respondent No.5 and apprehending danger to his life, the appellant submitted a detailed complaint against him to the Superintendent of Police, Satna on 26/8/2017. Still when nothing happened due to political influence of the respondent No.5, the appellant was constrained to file a criminal complaint against him in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chitrakoot District Satna under Sec. 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Due to his bad luck, the said complaint was also rejected granting liberty to file another one for the cognizable offences in accordance with law. On the contrary, the respondent No.5 made a complaint against the appellant to the Minister, Civil Supplies Department during his visit to Satna on 22- 24/8/2017, on which a report was sought from respondent No.4 Regional Manager by the officials of the Allahabad Bank, Satna and also the office of Collector, Satna. This put the appellant in a precarious condition inasmuch as the respondents No.1 to 4 did not take any action for protection or security of the appellant. Exasperated by all this, the appellant submitted a letter dtd. 3/9/2017 to the respondent Bank, wherein, he, out of frustration referring to the callous and non- cooperative attitude of the respondents No.1 to 4, made a request to accept his resignation with effect from 16/9/2017. Responding to this letter, the respondent No.3 passed an order on 11/9/2017 whereby the appellant was relieved to join at the Kamadgiri Branch. The appellant complied with the same and joined at Kamadgiri Branch. This was a temporary arrangement for only 90 days and not a regular transfer order. Despite the fact that the appellant was regularly requesting the respondents to transfer him out of Baraundha, the respondent No.4 orally informed the appellant that due to shortage of staff, he cannot be permanently transferred out of Baraundha. This created a huge pressure and mental depression on the appellant. Therefore, looking to the callous, non-cooperative and obstinate attitude of the respondents No.1 to 4, the appellant under duress submitted his resignation from service on 19/9/2017 to be effective after three months. For some time however, no action was taken on the said application. But in the meantime, the appellant was suddenly informed telephonically on 19/12/2017 that instead of taking a positive action on the grievance of the appellant, his resignation has been accepted. The appellant being aggrieved thereby submitted a representation on 31/12/2017 to the respondents No. 2 to 4 seeking cancellation of his resignation, which was submitted due to unavoidable and compelling circumstances as the respondents No.1 to 4 were not taking steps to remove his problems. The appellant however by order dtd. 20/12/2017, which was received by him on 30/1/2018, was relieved from service accepting his under protest resignation made on account of exasperation and feeling of frustration. Hence, the writ petition was preferred.