ATUL BORAH Vs. UNITED BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner joined the services of the United Bank of India in the year 1973. He was promoted from time to time and in the year 1996, was posted as Assistant Regional Manager, Central Assam Region, at Guwahati. The United Bank of India, hereinafter referred to as the Bank, introduced a Voluntary Retirement Scheme by the circular dated December 23, 2000. The petitioner being eligible to seek retirement under the Scheme opted to go on voluntary retirement. About 8 months thereafter, the Bank communicated the acceptance of the application vide letter dated August 29, 2001, and the petitioner was directed to be relieved from the service at the closure of business on August 31, 2001. The said letter dated August 29, 2001 was delivered to the petitioner on August 31, 2001 at 11 A. M. At about 1.30 P.M., the Deputy General Manager (Administration) on the plea of having a look at the acceptance letter took the same from the petitioner. Immediately thereafter, the petitioner was summoned by the Regional Manager and informed that the higher authorities had withdrawn the acceptance permitting him to go on voluntary retirement. The petitioner immediately submitted an application in writing to the Regional Manager informing him about the developments. It was followed by the representation dated September 3, 2001 submitted before the Respondent No. 3, namely, the Regional Manager, wherein it is stated that once his option was accepted and communicated, it was illegal on the part of the authority to resile back. The petitioner came to know that the acceptance was withdrawn in contemplation of initiation of a disciplinary proceeding for alleged misconduct. By the letter dated September 10, 2001 issued by the Assistant General Manager (D&IR), the petitioner was informed that the authority declined to accept the application in view of the provisions in para 4(d) of the Scheme. Hence, this petition for setting aside the order of withdrawal of acceptance, is filed.

(2.) The respondents, in their affidavit-in-opposition, in para-4, took the plea that withdrawal of the pemnssion is in conformity with the law, inasmuch as a disciplinary proceeding is contemplated against him for misconduct. In para-8 the respondents have spelt out that by the letter dated August 29, 2001, the petitioner was informed about the acceptance of his application for voluntary retirement to be effective at the close of business on August 31, 2001. Though the order of acceptance was handed over to the petitioner on August 31, 2001, having realised that the acceptance was accorded under mistake, it was withdrawn by the letter dated August 31, 2001, issued before the close of business on August 31, 2001. The Bank pleaded that the withdrawal was effected before the cessation of the jural relationship as the petitioner was found ineligible for voluntary retirement under the Scheme for misconduct in the discharge of his duties.

(3.) Mr. P.C. Deka, learned senior counsel, argued for the petitioner and Mr. S. Dutta, learned counsel for the respondent Bank.