RAM SINGH MEENA Vs. BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant petition is basically directed against order dt.15/07/1991 passed by respondent Bank in exercise of powers under Cl.17(a) of the Bi-Partite Settlement dt.10/04/1989 holding that the employee (petitioner) having remained absent from duty and despite notice, never came across with any explanation for his absence for the period in question satisfying the Management of the Bank; it was deemed that the employee has voluntarily retired from Bank service - decision whereof was communicated to the employee through registered post AD.

(2.) Representation filed by the employee on 01/09/1994 (Ann.3) giving alleged justification came to be rejected vide order dt.09/12/1994 (Ann.4), which has been assailed herein.

(3.) As alleged, petitioner was initially appointed as Accounts Clerk through selection by Bank Service Recruitment Board vide order dt.13/05/1983 pursuant to which he joined on 24/05/1983 and thereafter was confirmed on 245/11/1983 and transferred to the Regional Office of the Bank at Jaipur on 15/06/1990, and while serving there, he proceeded on leave from 23/02/1991 though submitted application but without seeking prior permission to leave head quarter and did not turn up thereafter and as a consequence thereof, notice was sent on 30/06/1991 which was duly served upon him but since he did not send reply to the notice, respondent Bank considered it to be voluntarily cessation of service on the part of petitioner, and in exercise of powers U/Cl.17(a) of the Bipartite settlement dt.10/04/1989 took decision regarding his voluntary retirement while passing order dt.15/07/1991 sent by registered post A/D.