T S GANDHOK Vs. PUNJAB AND SIND BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition has been filed for quashing the charge-sheets dated 24. 2. 1999 and 16. 6. 2000 Annexure P-7 and P-8 respectively on the ground that the same have been issued without jurisdiction and that the petitioner had already left the service of the respondent Punjab and Sind on account of his resignation submitted on 23. 5. 1997 and the Game having deemed to have been accepted in view of the provisions of Regulation 20 (2) and (3) of the Punjab and Sind Bank (Officers) Service Regulations, 1982 (hereinafter to be referred as the Regulations ). The petitioner also claims the relief of his terminal dues i. e. gratuity, provident fund etc. , alongwith interest at the rate of 18% p. a. for the period of delay in making the payment.

(2.) THE facts leading to the case are that the petitioner was working as Manager, Punjab and Sind Bank. He in terms of letter dated 12. 1. 1997 Annexure P-l sought voluntary retirement from service of the Bank on the ground that he had not been keeping good health for the last several months. No response to the notice dated 12. 1. 1997 Annexure P-l was received. The petitioner treated the notice as having been accepted by the respondent Bank in accordance with Regulation 20. Accordingly the petitioner submitted a representation dated 12. 4. 1997 Annexure P-2 indicating therein that the period of three months had already lapsed from the submission of his request for voluntary retirement and, therefore, he is deemed to have retired from service of the Bank in terms of the provisions of Regulation 20 of the Regulations. The respondent-Bank, however, had issued a letter dated 11. 4. 1997 Annexure P-3 with reference to the application of the petitioner for voluntary retirement informing him that he had not completed 20 years of qualifying service in terms of Regulations 21 and 29 of the Regulations and as such his request for voluntary retirement had not been acceded to by the competent authority. The petitioner thereafter submitted a detailed representation dated 23. 5. 1997 Annexure P-4 containing therein that he had in fact completed period of 20 years of service as on 9. 4. 1997. However, in case he does not qualify for voluntary retirement, then his letter dated 1. 1. 1997 Annexure P-l be treated as resignation and he may be relieved accordingly with effect from 11. 4. 1997 on account of his continuous illness. It is the case of the petitioner that at the time of submitting representation dated 23. 5. 1997 Annexure P-4, no disciplinary proceedings were pending against him. Thereafter, he submitted representation dated 12. 11:1998 Annexure P-5 requesting for the payment of his retiral dues. In response to the same, the respondent-Bank addressed letter dated 4. 12. 1998 Annexure P-6 and informed him that his resignation had not been accepted and as such his absence from duty has been considered as unauthorised. He was advised in his own interest to join duty immediately failing which disciplinary action would be initiated against him.

(3.) THESEFORE, the respondent-Bank issued him impugned charge sheet dated 24. 3. 1999 Annexure P-7 alleging that the petitioner had used his official position to avail housing loans of Rs. 80,000/- on 3. 10. 1988 and Rs. 20,000/- on 6. 1. 1989 without depositing title deeds of the property and he also did not repay that loan by getting deductions made from his salary. Subsequently second charge sheet dated 16. 6. 2000 Annexure P-8 has been issued on the allegations that the petitioner had been absenting from duty unauthorisedly since 21. 7. 1995. As already noticed above, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the aforesaid charge sheets.