BALAK RAM SINGH Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed calling in question the communication dated 28.12.2010 (Annx.P/1) by which the petitioner is informed that his application for voluntary retirement from Bank services cannot be considered as a disciplianry action is contemplated against the petitioner, on the ground that no such refusal to accept the application for voluntary retirement could have been communicated to the petitioner nor such a decision could be taken by the respondents as the date for voluntary retirement was specifically mentioned by the petitioner in his application and the said communication was received by the petitioner after the expiry of the said date. It is contended that the petitioner was working on the post of Special Assistant in the employment of the Bank. On account of his personal reasons, since he has completed the requisite years of service, he gave a notice of voluntary retirement with effect from 31.12.2010, on 22.11.2010. The communication was received by the petitioner only after expiry of the period of notice and, therefore, he was not to be refused to voluntary retire from the service. It is contended that no action whatsoever was initiated against the petitioner at the relevant time, for taking any disciplinary action against him and, therefore, for such reasons the petitioner could not have been refused to retire from service. It is contended that an award has been made by the competent authority under the settlement between the Bank and the employees, commonly known as 'Shastri Award' and it has the statutory force. Section 522 of the award prescribes that a permanent employee desirous of leaving the services of the Bank shall give one month's notice in writing to the Manager and if such a notice is given, the employee can relinquish the service and retire from service. It is contended that in terms of such statutory provisions, since the notice was given, the respondents were not entitled to refuse to accept such notice or to retire the petitioner voluntarily. Thus, it is contended that the communication of such a decision to the petitioner sent by respondents is bad in law and is liable to be quashed. The relief on the basis of such submissions have been claimed in the following manner.-

(2.) On receipt of the notice of this writ petition, the respondents have filed a detailed return. It is categorically contended by the respondents that the petitioner was not working properly, there were definite information that huge amount was credited in the Bank account of the petitioner and was subsequently withdrawn. Finding that such financial irregularities were being committed and the volume/turn over of the amount in the Bank account of the petitioner was disproportionate to the known sources of his income, the action was to be taken against him. When the explanation was called, the petitioner started making demand of supply of documents and did not submit his explanation voluntarily. This being so, the decision was taken to initiate a departmental enquiry against the petitioner. As soon as this fact came to the notice of the petitioner, he gave a notice of voluntary retirement which was considered and immediately he was informed that such a request of the petitioner cannot be accepted and he is to continue in the services of the Bank. The said fact was intimated well within the time on 28.12.2010, much before the period of notice indicated in the application for voluntary retirement as such the petitioner was not permitted to retire voluntarily. It is contended that there are statutory provisions made in the Rules/Regulations governing the services of the Bank employees and since there was a reason to withhold the voluntary retirement of the petitioner, as per the Pension Rules, the action was rightly taken. Thus, it is contended that the entire claim made by the petitioner is misconceived and the petition is liable to be dismissed.

(3.) The rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner controverting the allegations made against him and the additional return has been submitted by the respondents.