STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. ASHOK KUMARR DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal has arisen out of the judgment and decree, dated 01. 12. 2001, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 1, Cachar, Silchar, in Title Appeal No. 39/1999, dismissing the Appeal and upholding thereby the judgment and decree, dated 28. 05. 99, passed, in Title Suit No. 153/92, by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 2, Silchar, whereby the suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff-respondent herein.

(2.) THE plaintiff case, briefly stated, is thus: The plaintiff was an employee of the State Bank of India, the plaintiff's appointment having been made, on 14. 11. 83, and his service having been confirmed on 10. 8. 84. While the plaintiff had been working as a messenger, at the Silchar branch of the said bank, he, suddenly, suffered from mental illness, on or around 8. 8. 90, and remained under treatment of Dr. H. R. Goswami of the Department of Psychiatry, Silchar Medical College. After prolonged treatment, the plaintiff was certified by the doctor, on 14. 11. 91, to be fit for normal duty. As the plaintiff, due to his mental illness, could not attend his duties at the bank, the bank authorities, treating the absence of the plaintiff from duty as his absence without leave, passed an order, on 12. 12. 90, directing that the plaintiff shall stand voluntarily retired with effect from 12. 12. 1990. Upon his recovery from mental illness, though the plaintiff sought to join his duties, his employer did not accede to his request. The plaintiff, therefore, instituted a suit seeking, inter alia, the relief of declaration that the order, dated 12. 12. 90, voluntarily retiring him from service, was illegal and that his period of absence, from 8. 8. 90 till 13. 11. 91, may be treated as a period of leave on medical ground.

(3.) THE defendants contested the suit, their case being, in brief, thus : in terms of the conditions of service and, particularly, in terms of the settlement, which had been entered into between the State Bank of India, on the one hand, and All India State Bank Staff Federation, on the other, the service of a person, who remains absent from duty for a period of more than ninety days, shall be liable to termination. In the present case, as the plaintiff had remained absent from duty for over a period of ninety days, the defendants served a notice on the plaintiff and, on the failure of the plaintiff to rejoin his duties, he was voluntarily retired by the impugned, dated 12. 12. 90. In the facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, the action of the defendants was wholly within the ambit of law and may not be interfered with. The defendants accordingly sought for dismissal of the suit.