IMPORTANT POINT
Scope of judicial review under Article 226 is limited and a disputed fact of giving notice to last known address of petitioner by respondent cannot be gone into.

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1949 is filed by the petitioner to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records in proceedings No.711/ZOH/PSWW/303286 dated 12.03.1999 as reconfirmed by letter No.2801/ZOH/PS/AS/303286/99 dated 18.09.1999 and quash the same as they are illegal, arbitrary and in violation of clause 17(a) of the 5th Bi-Partite Settlement (for short, ‘the B.P.S.) dated 10.04.1989 and reinstate the petitioner into service with all consequential benefits.

The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that initially he joined as Clerk in respondent-bank on 09.04.1979; served in various branches and completed two decades of unblemished service; while he was working at Vijayawada Main Branch, he proceeded on leave duly informing the Manager, submitted leave application in June, 1998 and was extending leave from time to time annexing medical certificates confirming that he was still under treatment. While the petitioner was undergoing treatment, suddenly, his mother fell seriously ill; the petitioner, being the eldest male member in the family, was under obligation to take care of his mother; shifted his residence to his native place informing the latest address to the Manager through an application for extension of leave and that he submitted his applications to the Manager periodically in accordance with the Leave Rules and submitted leave applications for the period from 06.06.1998 to 02.10.1998 and 03.10.1998 to 15.06.1999, filed a copy of the leave letter dated 28.06.1999 along with the medical certificates to establish that he was under treatment for his ailment. As there was no response to his letter either from the Branch Manager or from the Regional Manager, he addressed another letter dated 27.08.1999 to the Deputy General Manager, Zonal Office, Hyderabad furnishing details of leave on medical grounds and requested to look into the matter; post him in any of the branches near to his native place Nandigama enabling him to attend his ailing mother, while discharging his official duties, marked a copy to the Regional Manager, Regional Office, Vijayawada and an advance copy to the Main Branch, Vijayawada. In response, the respondent sent a letter No.2801/ZOH/PS/AS/303286/99 dated 18.09.1999 informing that the services of the petitioner were voluntarily abandoned as per Clause 17(a) of the B.P.S. and further informed that vide his letter No.711/ZOH/PSWW/303286 dated 12.03.1999, he has abandoned the services of the petitioner but the same was not received by the petitioner till date.

As per Clause 17(a) of the B.P.S., a duty is cast upon the management to issue a notice to the delinquent employee to his last known address and obtain explanation for his absence without applying any leave and service of such notice is mandatory.

In the letter dated 18.09.1999, there is a vague reference in letter dated 12.03.1999 allegedly issued to the petitioner in compliance of clause 17(a) of the B.P.S. without disclosing the details while making an allegation that receipt of the same was acknowledged by the petitioner but neither failed to resume to duty nor submitted any satisfactory reply and, on account of such conduct, his services were terminated and such procedure is totally contrary to clause 17(a) of the B.P.S.

In fact, the petitioner was prompt in sending leave letters, which is clear from the leave sanction letter of Divisional Office, Vijayawada (No.DOV/3348/PC/771 dated 25.01.1995) and that he availed Extra Ordinary Leave (EOL) on Loss of Pay from 1994, after completion of 15 years of unblemished record and that only on account of the circumstances beyond his control, which indicates that he was regular to the office during the period.

Though the respondent allegedly sent a letter in compliance of clause 17(a) of the B.P.S., no such letter was served on the petitioner and it is