DENA BANK AND ORS. Vs. DEVINDER KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Devinder Kumar was recommended for appointment in the Clerical Cadre post by the Secretary, Banking Service Recruitment Board, New Delhi. On the basis of that recommendation, he was appointed as Cashier -cum -Clerk in the office of Dena Bank, Ludhiana. He was awarded appreciation letter by Dena Bank. Regional Office, New Delhi for his honest and good work. As per him, when he was on leave, Dena Bank, Regional Office served him with notice to report for duty at Dena Bank, Ludhiana, Branch Office within 30 days of the said notice. He went to the office of Dena Bank, Ludhiana pursuant to that notice for joining duty on 12.8.1989. He was, however, not allowed to join duty by the Branch Manager, Dena Bank, Ludhiana. Instead, he received Memo No. NDR PER 9576 -89 dated 24.11.1989 deeming him to have voluntarily retired from the bank service.

(2.) Plaintiff Devinder Kumar filed suit for declaration against Dena Bank to the effect that office Memo No. NDR PER 9576 -89 dated 24.11.1989 issued by Dena Bank, Regional Office, defendant No. 2 deeming him to have retired from bank service was illegal, void, ultra vires, unjust, mala fide, arbitrary, capricious, against the principles of natural justice, inoperative and not binding upon him and further that he should be deemed to have always been in continuous service of Dena Bank for mandatory injunction directing the defendant Dena Bank to allow him to join duty. It was alleged in the plaint that no inquiry was conducted. No opportunity was afforded to him. He was given appointment as Cashier -cum -Clerk in the office of Dena -Bank. Ludhiana Branch vide letter RECTT/P -1437/83, dated 1.11.1983. He was confirmed as Cashier -cum -Clerk w.e.f. 1.5.1984 and was awarded appreciation letter No. NDR:PER:KD:8760:85 dated 25.6.1985 by Dena Bank Regional Office, New Delhi for his good work. While he was on leave, Dena Bank, Regional Office, New Delhi, served him with notice calling upon him to report for duty at Ludhiana within 30days of the said notice. He went to Ludhiana Branch Office, Dena Bank to join duty on 12.8.1989 but he was not allowed to join duty on the ground that Dena Bank, Regional Office, New Delhi had directed them not to allow him to join duty. He submitted application dated 12.8.1989 to the Branch Manager, Dena Bank, Ludhiana to allow him to join duty but to no effect. He filed many representations but to no effect. Memo No. NDR:PER:9576:89 dated 24.11.1989 deeming him to have voluntarily retired from the bank service is without jurisdiction, against the principles of natural justice and even against the provisions laid down in fourth Bipartite Settlement dated 23.2.1989 and 10.4.1989.

(3.) The defendants contested the suit of the plaintiff urging that since 21.10.1988, the plaintiff had not been attending his duty at Ludhiana Branch since 21.10.1988, he had absented himself from work for a period of more than 90 days consecutively and without any leave to his credit. He was called for duty at Ludhiana Branch of Dena Bank within 30 days or to give satisfactory explanation in writing for his aforesaid absence failing which he will be deemed to have voluntarily retired from the service of Dena Bank in view of Fourth Bipartite Settlement dated 23.2.1989 and 10.4.1989. It was denied that the plaintiff ever reported for duty at Ludhiana Branch after service of the said notice dated 28.7.1989. He submitted his reply dated 12.8.1989 to the defendant in which no satisfactory explanation was given to his continued absence from duty for a period of more than 90 days. He remained deliberately absent from duty on account of his employment with M/s. HIM VESTS Pvt. Jalandhar City. The Bank later on learnt about his employment with M/s HIM VESTS Pvt. Ltd. Jalandhar from various documents received in the office of Dena Bank either from the State Bank of India or otherwise because the said M/s. HIM VESTS Pvt. Ltd. Jalandhar obtained a loan from the State Bank of India and executed loan documents. It was urged that the Memo issued by Dena Bank, Regional Office, New Delhi deeming the plaintiff to have voluntarily retired from the bank service was quite legal.