RAM CHANDRA MAHASETH Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INTERLOCUTORY Application No. 1478 of 2005 has been filed for substitution of the sole petitioner who died on 15.12.2004 leaving behind three legal heirs who are indicated in paragraph -1 of the I.A. The interlocutory application is allowed. The persons indicated in paragraph -1 (i) to (iii) be substituted in place of the present petitioner.

(2.) PETITIONER therefore challenges both the orders in question on several grounds. Some of them are that in terms of Rule 40(3) when an officer absents himself for a period of ninety days or more without due authority or sanction of leave it is incumbent upon the Bank to give notice to the officer on the last available address, to report for duty within thirty days. If he does not report for duty within the stipulated time it would be treated to be a voluntary vacation of employment on the expiry of the said period of notice. An appeal is maintainable against such an order if it is passed and the appellate authority must satisfy that the officer was prevented by sickness or incapacity from reporting for duty within the prescribed period. According to the petitioner the notices issued to him did not follow the prescribed time frame laid down under Rule 40(3). He does not deny that some notices were issued to him as contained in annexures 6 and 6/A. But a perusal of the said notices would show that instead of mandatory thirty days period for reporting for duty on every occasion only three days time was granted for reporting back to duty. In otherwords the respondents themselves had not complied with the requirement of Rule 40(3). Petitioner's case is that he was a victim of unfortunate development on his personal front and many a calamities had wounded him which forced him to absent from duty and it was not a conscious decision on his part not to shoulder his responsibility of office. There were compelling circumstances available.

(3.) THE Court has gone through the order contained in annexure -2 which is an order passed in appeal. The entire background of the present decision making has been truly reflected in the order passed by the appellate authority. The appellate authority has considered the so called compelling circumstances under which the petitioner had been absenting himself but then the appellate authority in paragraph 4(ii) of the order has also categorically recorded that all the notices which were served by the Bank upon the petitioner he had signed the acknowledgment card with full signature on 25.6.1994, 7.7.1994 and 14.7.1994. If he was really suffering from paralytic attack since May, 94 and was prevented from making leave application then he would not have put his full signature as acknowledgement to the letters in question. Petitioner continued to ignore the various communications from the Bank and that was the sufficient indication about the intents and the commitment of the petitioner to shoulder the responsibility of the post which he was holding all along. In fact, it is silence of the petitioner coupled with inaction on his part which has led to passing of the order in question.