IMPORTANT POINT
If despite service of notice the employee did not report for duty, the consequences therefor would ensue.

JUDGMENT

S.B. Sinha, J.—

1. Leave granted.

2. Application of Clause 16 of the Shastri Award is in question in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 16.10.2006 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore in Writ Appeal No.322 of 2006 whereby and whereunder a judgment and order dated 29.10.2004 passed by a learned Single Judge of the said Court in writ petition No.521 of 2004 was affirmed.

3. Respondent has admittedly been in employment of the appellant bank since 1973. On or about 22.7.1986, he had taken four days’ leave upto 25.7.1986. He extended his leave from 26.7.1986 to 1.8.1986. He neither joined his services nor filed any further application for extension of leave.

Two memos dated 4/5.8.1986 and 18.8.1986 were issued. A letter dated 13.10.1986 was thereafter issued which was returned to the bank with an endorsement ‘Refused’. The said letter reads as under :

“With Reference to our office letters dated 5.8.1986, 18.8.1986 requesting to submit proper leave application and reasons of remaining absent from the Bank.

Mr. V.K. Neema has not submitted any application after 2.8.1986 and reasons of his remaining absent from the duties.

Mr. V.K. Neema is hereby advised to report for duties immediately and submit the reasons of his absence from the bank. Within three days, failing which disciplinary action will be taken against him.”

4. As he did not join his duties, a show-cause notice dated 9.2.1987 was issued as to why a disciplinary proceeding shall not be initiated against him, stating :

“Attention of Shri V.K. Neema Clerk is drawn that he applied for 4 days leave from 22.7.86 to 25.7.86 and thereafter extended the leave for 26.7.86 to 1.8.86. After expiry of the said period Shri V.K. Neema, neither reported for duty nor submitted any leave application for any reason whatsoever.

Vide our letters dated 5.8.86, 18.8.86 and 13.10.86 Mr. Neema was advised to report for duty immediately and to submit the reasons of his absence from the bank within days Mr. V.K. Neema did not comply with the instruction and he refused to accept our letter dated 13.10.1986 which was sent at his residence address by Regd. Post.

In the circumstances, Bank has reason to believe that he has no intention of continuing in the services of the Bank. However, he is once again called upon to report for duty at our Branch within 30 days of this letter and submit his explanation for his unauthorized absence from 2.8.86. If he fails to report for duty within the period stipulated above, it will be deemed that he has voluntarily retires from the service of the Bank on the expiry of said period of 30 days and his name will be struck off from the Rolls of the Bank, and the bank will take suitable action to recover its dues.”

5. Respondent filed a representation upon receipt of the said notice.

6. By reason of an order dated 6.4.1987, respondent was informed that he had ceased to be in the bank’s employment with effect from 9.3.1987 having voluntarily abandoned the service.

Indisputably, respondent had taken some loan from the bank, he had shifted from 192, Jawahar Marg, Indore to 62, Vandana Nagar, Indore. A recovery suit was filed by the bank wherein the address of the respondent was stated as 62, Vandana Nagar, Indore.

7. Respondent also preferred an appeal on 2.5.1987 against the said order dated 6.4.1987. He thereafter filed a writ petition before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Indore Bench, Indore which was marked as W.P.586 of 1988. By reason of an order dated 22.4.1997, the said writ petition was disposed of by the High Court, observing :

“However, it has not been disputed before me, that Annexure-G, an appeal has not been disposed of by the Respondents in accordance with law. It has further not been disputed that against the Order passed by Respondents (Annexure-A and E), an appeal would lie to Zonal Manager in terms of clause 19.14 of the Bi-partite Settlement.”

The High Court opined :

“Thus, on totality