Back
1995 Supreme(Del) 89
High Court Of Delhi
RAHUL BUTALIA - Appellant
Versus
STATE BANK OF INDIA - Respondent
Civil Writ 1268 of 1991
Decided On : 01/24/1995
Altaf Ahmed, D.R.NIGAM, RAJ BIRBAL, RAJ KAPOOR, RAKESH AGRAWAL, SANJAY KAPOOR
An employee cannot be deemed to have voluntarily abandoned his service or resigned therefrom without being given adequate opportunity to defend himself against the allegations of misconduct and without following the procedure laid down in the Service Rules.
Headnote:
SERVICE LAW - STATE BANK OF INDIA (SUPERVISING STAFF) SERVICES RULES, 1975 - RULE 92 - FORFEITURE OF APPOINTMENT - PROCEDURE - PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING - ABANDONMENT OF SERVICE - INTENTION - EVIDENCE.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an employee of the State Bank of India, was deemed to have voluntarily abandoned his service and resigned therefrom with effect from March 9, 1990, by an order dated May 22, 1990, passed by the Chief General Manager of the bank. The petitioner challenged the order, contending that it was illegal and violative of the State Bank of India (Supervising Staff) Services Rules, 1975 (Rules) and the principles of natural justice.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the procedure followed in passing the impugned order was not in conformity with the principles of natural justice and the Service Rules. The court found that the petitioner was not given adequate opportunity to defend himself against the allegations of misconduct and that the respondent bank did not follow the procedure laid down in the Rules for taking action against an employee for misconduct.
Issues: 1. Whether the procedure followed in passing the impugned order was in conformity with the principles of natural justice and the Service Rules? 2. Whether the petitioner was given adequate opportunity to defend himself against the allegations of misconduct? 3. Whether the respondent bank followed the procedure laid down in the Rules for taking action against an employee for misconduct?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the impugned order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and the Service Rules. The court found that the petitioner was not given adequate opportunity to defend himself against the allegations of misconduct and that the respondent bank did not follow the procedure laid down in the Rules for taking action against an employee for misconduct. The court held that even if the respondent was proceeding on the premise that absentation from duty would amount to abandonment of or resignation from service, it was still required to give adequate opportunity to the petitioner to adduce evidence to show that he did not have any intention to abandon or relinquish his services by remaining absent without leave.
Final Decision: The court quashed the impugned order and directed the respondent bank to reinstate the petitioner in service. The court also held that it would be open to the respondent bank to initiate fresh enquiry against the petitioner for remaining absent from March 9, 1990 and to take action in accordance with law.
( 1 ) THIS is a Writ Petition whereby the petitioner challenges the order dated May 22,1990 of the Chief General Manager of the first respondent whereby the petitioner was deceased to have voluntarily abandoned and resigned from the service of the bank. The brief facts giving rise to this petition are as follows:-
( 2 ) THE petitioner was appointed as a Probationary Officer in the respondent bank on September 10, 1975. He was confirmed in the Officers Grade w. e. f. September 10, 1977. The petitioner worked in the bank in various capacities, namely, as Accountant in the Regional Stationery Department at Patna, Officerin-charge, Foreign Exchange in Chandni Chowk Branch, Delhi, Field Officer, Overseas Branch, Parliament Street, New Delhi, Manager at Asian Games Village Branch, and Manager, Rajpur Road Branch, Dehradun. In January 1988 the petitioner was selected for Commercial and Institutional Project and was transferred to Central Office, Bombay. While at Bombay the petitioner availed of leave from August 16, 1989 to September 2, 1989 and from September 3, 1989 to October 5, 1989. It is alleged that subsequently the petitioner remained absent from duty unauthorisedly for various spells. On February 28, 1990 the petitioner was transferred from Central Office, Bombay to Personnel Department, New Delhi. The petitioner s case is that he joined duty on March 2, 1990. However, the respondents have denied the fact of the petitioner reporting for duty on the said date. It is their case that upto March 9,1990 the petitioner was availing joining time. There is again an area of dispute with regard to the petitioner applying for 22 days leave from March 10, 1990 to March 31, 1990. While the petitioner says that he applied for leave, respondent denies it. However, it is undisputed that the petitioner went abroad on March 5, 1990 without any leave being sanctioned in writing in his favour.
( 3 ). The respondent-bank by its telegram dated March 8,1990 to the petitioner required him to be present on expiry of the joining time. He was also warned that if he still remained absent he shall be considered to be on an unauthorised leave. On March 31,1990 the respondent-bank again wrote to the petitioner pointing out that he was absent from duty unauthorisedly since March 9,1990. He was asked to report for duty within three days of the receipt of this communication and was 765 also required to explain the reasons for his absence. Pursuant to this letter, the petitioner sent a telegram (Annexure E to the petition) to the respondent staling that he was unable to attend duty due to illness and would be sending a detailed letter alongwith medical certificate in this regard. Besides, the petitioner in the said telegram requested for grant of medical leave to him. It appears that the petitioner did not join duty with the result, that the respondent by letter dated April 18, 1990 again asked the petitioner to report for duty within 3 days and explain the reasons for his absence failing which it will be presumed that he had voluntarily abandoned duty or resigned from service. This letter seems to have been received at Delhi by the mother of the petitioner, who wrote to the bank on April24,1990 (Annexure E to the Writ Petition in forming the latter that during his stay abroad the petitioner had fallen ill and had not voluntarily abandoned the service. Since the petitioner did not report for duty as directed, order dated May 22,1990 was passed by the Chief Manager whereby the petitioner was deemed to have voluntarily abandoned his service and resigned therefrom with effect from March 9,1990. The petitioner was further required to pay three months emolu- ments in lieu of the notice. It is this order which has been impugned by the petitioner in the present Writ Petition.
( 4 ) MR. Raj Birbal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the order was illegal as the same was passed in violation of the State Bank of India (Supe
