PRALAY SARAN CHAKRABORTY Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the judgment dated 10.9.96 of the learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing Civil Rule No./170/94 filed by the appellant.

(2.) The facts briefly are that the appellant was an officer in the rank of Junior Management Grade Scale-I in the State Bank of India. In the year 1989, he was allowed to officiate in the higher post of Middle Management Grade Scale-II at its Regional Office at Agartala. By Memorandum dated 28.4.93, the appellant was transferred from the said Regional Office at Agartala and reverted and posted as Officer in the rank of Junior Management Grade Scale-I at the Agartala Branch of the State Bank of India. Aggrieved by the said transfer and reversion, the appellant filed Title Suit No. 32/ 93 in the Court of the learned Munsiff, West Tripura, Agartala, on 7.5.93 challenging the said order dated 28.4.93. Along with the said Title Suit, the appellant also filed an application for temporary injunction numbered Misc. Case 40/ 93. But the said prayer for temporary injunction was rejected by the learned Munsiff byhis order dated 21.5.93. Against the said order rejecting the prayer for temporary injunction, the appellant filed an appeal before the learned District Judlge, West Tripura, Agartala, but the said appeal was also dismissed. The appellant then filed writ petition numbered as Civil Rule No. 170/94 before this Court praying for, inter alia, a direction on the respondents to allow the appellant to resume his duties at the Regional Office of the State Bank of India as Middle Management Grade Scale-II (for short "Middle Management Grade Scale-II") and to treat him as on duty in the said post at the Regional Office of the State Bank of India with effect from 8.5.93, and to pay him his salary and allowances for the months of October, November and December, 1993, and January, February and March, 1994. In the said writ petition, a prayer was also made for a writ of certiorari quashing the order of the learned Munsiff, West Tripura, Agartala, rejecting the prayer of the appellant for temporary injunction, and for transfer of the said Title Suit No. 32/93 pending in the Court of learned Munsiff, West Tripura, Agartala, to this Court. During the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition, the appellant filed on 31.7.95 a petition for amendment of the writ petition challenging the letter dated 29.3.94 of the Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, Regional Office at Agartala, permitting the appellant tto retire voluntarily from Bank's service as at the close of business on 31.3.94. The respondents contended, inter alia, in their counter-affidavit that since the appellant had issued a notice dated 31.12.93 to the Appropriate Authority expressing his intention to go on voluntary retirement on and from 31.3.94 and the said notice had been accepted, the appellant stood voluntarily retired from the Bank's service with effect from 31.3.94 and that after his voluntary retirement the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner/appellant was not maintainable. By the impugmed judgment dated 10.9.96, the learned Single Judge held that the notice of the appellant for voluntary retirement had been accepted by the competent authority and that the appellant did not approach the Court with clean hands and, accordingly, dismissed the writ petition awarding cost of Rs. 5000/- to the respondents.

(3.) At the hearing of this appeal, Sri Pralay Saran Chakraborty, the appellant appearing in person, contended that although initially the appellant issued a notice dated 31.12.93 to various authorities of the Bank for voluntary retirement with effect from 31.3.94, subsequently he also issued notices dated 4.4.94 and 28.4.94 for deferring the date of such retirement and thereafter issued another notice dated 27.6.94 revoking his earlier notice for voluntary retirement dated 31.12.93. He argued that under the fourth proviso to Rule 19(1) of the State Bank of India Officers Service Rules framed by the Central Board of State Bank of India under sub-section (1) of Section 43 of the State Bank of India Act, 1955, it was only the "competent authority" who could permit an officer who had completed 20 years of service or 20 years of pensionable service to retire from the Bank's service. But in the instant case, the impugned letter dated 29.3.94 of the Assistant General Manager issued to the appellant would show that it was not the competent authority but it was the appropriate authority who had permitted the appellant to retire voluntarily from the Bank's service as at the close of business on 31.3.94.