Back
2006 Supreme(Mad) 3376
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.E.N. PATRUDU
P. Padmanabha Reddy - Appellant
Versus
The Board of Directors Indian Overseas Bank & Others - Respondents
W.P.No.14553 of 2002
Decided On : 08 December 2006
The main legal point established in the judgment is that an employer must follow its own regulations and consider an employee's circumstances, such as ill health and voluntary retirement requests, before terminating their services.
Headnote:
Termination - Service Law - Regulation 20(1)(a) - [Termination, Service Law, Regulation 20(1)(a)] - The court discussed Regulation 20(1)(a) which allows termination of services if the performance of an officer is unsatisfactory or inadequate, or there is a bonafide suspicion about his integrity, or his retention in the Bank's service would be prejudicial to the interests of the Bank. The court highlighted that the bank did not follow its own regulation and did not consider the petitioner's ill health and voluntary retirement request, leading to the quashing of the termination order.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a bank clerk, was terminated due to continuous absence attributed to ill health. The court considered the bank's failure to follow its own regulation and the petitioner's voluntary retirement request.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the termination order was not in line with the bank's regulation and did not consider the petitioner's ill health and voluntary retirement request.
Issues: The main issue was whether the termination of the petitioner's services was legal under Regulation 20(1)(a) of the service law.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the bank did not follow its own regulation and failed to consider the petitioner's ill health and voluntary retirement request, leading to the quashing of the termination order.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the termination order was quashed. The court modified the order of termination to an order of compulsory retirement, entitling the petitioner to all terminal benefits.
(Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the first respondent, dated 16.02.2002, in Reg.No.PAD/SUP/177/358 and order of the second respondent, dated 07.12.2001 in Ref.No.PAD/SUP/177/170 and quash the same.)
Feeling aggrieved by the order of termination, dated 07.12.2001 and the subsequent order of their appeal, dated 16.02.2002, the petitioner has filed this writ petition, challenging the legality and the correctness of the termination.
2. The facts necessary to the disposal of the writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed as a Clerk in the respondent Bank on 05.07.1976. While so, he became sick person, since 1986, suffering with nervous weakness etc., and therefore, he was continuously applying leaves and unable to attend the duty. The petitioner also was on leave and loss of pay on several occasions. While so, the respondent Bank has transferred him from Chennai to Karaikudi and the petitioner made a representation that considering his ill health, he may be retained at Chennai. But the same was rejected by the respondents. Thereafter, the petitioner did not join at the new place, resulting notice from the Bank, dated 21.09.2001. The petitioner replied explaining his pathetic condition, but the Bank did not consider the same and finally issued a notice to report to duty, failing which his services will be terminated without further enquiry. The petitioner sent a reply, but the same was not considered and finally the impugned order of termination was passed on 07.12.2001 and the same was confirmed on the appeal.
3. Heard, Mr.M.S.Doraisamy, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mr.K.Srinivasamurthy, the learned counsel for the respondents.
4. The short point for determination is whether the order of termination is legal. The petitioner's services are terminated by the respondent on Regulation 20(1) (a) and Regulation 20(1) (a) reads as follows:
20 (1) (a) Subject to sub-regulation (3) of regulation 1, where the bank is satisfied that the performance of an Officer is unsatisfactory or inadequate or there is a bonafide suspicion about his integrity or his retention in the Bank's service would be prejudicial to the interests of the Bank, and where it is not possible or expedient to proceed against him as per the disciplinary procedures, the Bank may terminate the services on giving him Three month's notice or emoluments in lieu thereof in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Government from time to time.
This plain reading of the regulation discloses that the Bank is of the opinion that the performance of an officer is unsatisfactory or inadequate or there is a bonafide suspicion about his integrity or his retention in the Bank's service would be prejudicial to the interests of the Bank, and where it is not possible or expedient to proceed against him as per the disciplinary procedures, then only the bank is given an authority to terminate the services.
5. In the instant case, it is a debatable question that mere absence of the petitioner amounts to unsatisfactory or inadequate service. Admittedly, there is no impediment against the petitioner with regard to his integrity. In the instant case, the petitioner is contending that he is unwell from 1986 onwards and he was unable to attend the duty regularly and he was on leave on loss of pay on several occasions and the said fact has been communicated to the Bank and he is taking leaves in such case. It has to be verified whether the absence of the petitioner is unauthorised absence or authorised absence. Admittedly, the petitioner is absent from the duty, but, since the petitioner is intimating the facts, it can never be treated as unauthorised absence and this court under 3 or 4 cases explained what is mean by authorised absence and unauthorised absence. It may be the respondent to initiate action against the petitioner on the ground for his unauthorised absenc
