This writ petition has been filed to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ setting aside the order of the 4th respondent dated 06.03.2000 in file No. GM (RN)/AA/IR/1322 by which the order of the 2nd respondent dated 11.03.1998 in letter No. DGM(TRK)/DA/IR/1177 was confirmed and to declare the Enquiry Report dated 29.11.1997 of the 3rd respondent as illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and without jurisdiction.

The brief facts of the case are as follows:

The petitioner joined the service of the 1st respondent-Indian Overseas Bank in the year 1977 as an Agricultural Officer. He was promoted in the year 1991 as Scale-II Officer. He was transferred from Regional Office, Vijayawada to Regional Office, Calcutta by an order dated 29.07.1994 and was relieved on 15.10.1994 with instruction to report at Patna branch.

The petitioner’s case is that six members of his family died in a road accident and his wife had to undergo major surgery. Due to these problems, he developed high blood pressure coupled with diabetes which lead to severe depression. Since he was holding an important post as Manager in the financial institution involving mental tension, his health started causing problems and he was forced to go on medical leave under the advice of the Doctor attending on him from 15.10.1994. His further case is that he applied to the Bank Authorities for medical leave duly enclosing medical certificates and extending the leave from time to time and his leave applications were acknowledged from time to time. However, on 07.09.1995 he was informed that his request for leave was rejected and the period of absence was treated as unauthorized absence. The petitioner’s case is that the respondent bank has no power or authority to treat the period of his absence as unauthorised absence unless it is established that medical certificates produced by him are not genuine after subjecting him for medical examination. It is also his case that no reasons were assigned for declining his medical leave.

The specific case of the respondents is that since the petitioner was relieved on 15.10.1994 with instruction to report at Patna branch, he started sending leave applications to Regional Office, Calcutta from 15.11.1994 and the same was declined on 09.05.1995. Their further case is that in spite of specific instructions to report duty at Patna branch, the petitioner failed to report and therefore, his absence was treated as unauthorised absence. Preliminary enquiry was conducted and a charge sheet on 07.10.1995 was issued to the petitioner for his unauthorised absence. The respondents’ case is that the petitioner without submitting his reply to the charge sheet started sending letters asking them to intimate the reasons for declining his sick leave. The respondents’ further case is that if the sanctioning authority is not satisfied with the medical certificates, it shall decline the medical leave also.

The brief facts of the case as seen from the record are as follows:

It appears from the record that the wife and son of the petitioner were sick during the relevant period. The petitioner filed certain medical record of Swapna Nursing Home, Sai Ram clinic, Vijaya Clinic and Apollo Hospital and certain reports of the diagnostic centers in support of his contention that himself, his wife and son were sick. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was regularly sending his leave applications enclosing Doctors’ certificates. While the petitioner was sending medical leave applications, the respondent bank issued a letter dated 24.01.1995 advising the petitioner to report at Patna Branch. Request of the petitioner to transfer him to A.P. was pending with Head Office.

While things stood thus, the respondent bank by letter dated 09.05.1995 informed the petitioner that his request to sanction medical leave had been declined treating his absence from 15.10.1994 till 09.05.1995 as unauthorized absence. The petit