Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Dipankar Datta, M.S. Karnik, JJ.
Rohit Dewan – Petitioner
Versus
Syndicate Bank and ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No.2277 of 2019 with Interim Application No.2175 of 2021
Decided On : 23-09-2022
Illegal Termination - Employment - Syndicate Bank (Officers’) Service Regulations, 1979 - Syndicate Bank (Officers’) Employees Conduct Regulations, 1976 - The court discussed the acceptance and withdrawal of resignation, notice period, and the right to withdraw resignation before it becomes effective. The court held that the resignation was to be effective only from July 12, 2018, and the petitioner had the right to withdraw the resignation before it became effective. The court found the bank's action of informing the petitioner that his resignation has been accepted and he stands relieved as arbitrary and irrational. The writ petition was allowed, and the respondent–bank was directed to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service but without back-wages.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was appointed by an appointment letter dated October 27, 2010, and joined the employment of the respondent no.3 -Bank on January 7, 2011 as a Senior Manager (FS). The petitioner's appointment was governed by the provisions of Syndicate Bank (Officers’) Service Regulations, 1979 and Syndicate Bank (Officers’) Employees Conduct Regulations, 1976. The petitioner submitted his resignation from service to the bank on April 13, 2018 due to personal/family issues and requested that he may be relieved latest by June 30, 2018 after adjusting the terminal benefits payable to him. The resignation letter was received by the bank on April 13, 2018 itself. The petitioner made an unconditional request for accepting his resignation due to personal reasons. The petitioner, thereafter, requested the bank to relieve him from the services of the bank on July 12, 2018 i.e. till completion of 3 months notice period from the date of resignation letter. The request for being relieved on July 12, 2018 was accepted by the competent authority and he was informed that he would stand relieved from the bank’s services on July 12, 2018, as requested by him.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the resignation was to be effective only from July 12, 2018, and the petitioner had the right to withdraw the resignation before it became effective. The court held that the bank's action of informing the petitioner that his resignation has been accepted and he stands relieved as arbitrary and irrational. The court allowed the writ petition and directed the respondent–bank to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service but without back-wages.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner had the right to withdraw the resignation before it became effective, and whether the bank's action of informing the petitioner that his resignation has been accepted and he stands relieved was arbitrary and irrational.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the resignation was to be effective only from July 12, 2018, and the petitioner had the right to withdraw the resignation before it became effective. The court found the bank's action of informing the petitioner that his resignation has been accepted and he stands relieved as arbitrary and irrational.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the respondent–bank was directed to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service but without back-wages.
JUDGMENT :
M. S. KARNIK, J.
1. This is a writ petition filed under the provision of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The subject matter relates to the alleged illegal termination of employment of the petitioner with effect from July 12, 2018. The petitioner was working with the Syndicate Bank. Apart from quashing and setting aside the impugned orders dated July 12, 2018 and July 13, 2018, the petitioner prays for reliefs in terms of prayer clause (b) which reads thus :
2. The facts in a nutshell are stated hereafter. The petitioner was appointed by an appointment letter dated October 27, 2010 and joined the employment of the respondent no.3 -Bank on January 7, 2011 as a Senior Manager (FS). The petitioner's appointment was governed by the provisions of Syndicate Bank (Officers’) Service Regulations, 1979 (hereafter ‘Regulations of 1979) and Syndicate Bank (Officers’) Employees Conduct Regulations, 1976 (hereafter ‘Regulations of 1976). The petitioner was selected as a specialist officer (Forex) and was posted at the Foreign Exchange Processing Centre, New Delhi. On September 27, 2011, the petitioner was transferred to the South Block, New Delhi and was in-charge of handling foreign exchange transactions. Thereafter, on October 3, 2011 the petitioner was transferred again to the International Banking Division at New Delhi. The petitioner was confirmed in the employment of the bank as a Senior Manager with effect from January 7, 2012. Thereafter, the petitioner was posted at different stations on transfer. On December 5, 2017 the petitioner was appointed to work at London Branch of the bank and the clearance in respect of the said appointment was received from the Ministry of Finance sometime in January 2018. The petitioner made an application for visa. By an e-mail dated February 23, 2018, the petitioner expressed his intention to travel from India, that is, from March 5, 2018.
3. The petitioner submitted his resignation from service to the bank on April 13, 2018 due to personal/family issues and requested that he may be relieved latest by June 30, 2018 after adjusting the terminal benefits payable to him. The resignation letter was received by the bank on April 13, 2018 itself. The said letter was forwarded by the Assistant General Manager to the personal section of the regional office of the bank viz. respondent no.1. By letter dated April 27, 2018, the petitioner requested the bank to reduce the period of notice or waive the notice period for 12 days so that the admission of his children could be made on time. Vide a letter dated May 31, 2018, the petitioner requested the bank to permit him to continue him in service till July 12, 2018, that is, till completion of the notice period from the date of resignation. The Deputy General Manager of the bank by the letter dated May 31, 2018 recommended permission to relieve the petitioner on July 12, 2018 on completion of three months notice period instead of being relieved on June 30, 2018. By a letter dated June 20, 2018 issued by the Regional Office (respondent no.1), the petitioner was informed by the Deputy General Manager, that his resignation letter dated April 13, 2018 and request for being relieved on July 12, 2018 had been accepted by the bank and that he would stand relieved from the services of the bank on July 12, 2018 as requested by the petitioner. The petitioner averred that the said letter dated June 20, 2018 was not conveyed to him. The petitioner, by a letter dated June 30, 2018 with
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
