The court upheld the dismissal of the appellant-petitioner for unauthorized absence, affirming that procedural fairness was maintained during the disciplinary inquiry.

JUDGMENT :

(Vivek Kumar Birla, J.)

Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner and Sri K.M. Asthana, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Bank.

2. Present appeal has been filed challenging the impugned judgement and order dated 5.6.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ-A No. 7405 of 2021 (Manish Kumar v. Human Resource Management and others).

3. The case of the appellant-petitioner, as narrated in the order impugned herein, is that the appellant-petitioner was appointed on 17.11.2008 on the post of a Probationary Officer (Assistant Manager) MMGS I with the Syndicate Bank at Chennai. He got promotion on 26.6.2014 to the post of MMGS II. It is his case that on account of promotion, he joined the City Center Branch, Gwalior. He worked upto 19.3.2016 without any break in service. He was transferred from time to time from one city to another and across states. He performed his duties honestly and with devotion. He was last transferred to District Etawah Branch on 16.9.2017, where he was posted as an Assistant Manager. He has worked for a total of 13 years without any break in service. During this period of time, his work and conduct have been well regarded amongst the higher officials of the Bank. He was transferred to the Syndicate Branch, Etawah from Ahmedabad Main Branch in the year 2017, but unfortunately, due to what the appellant-petitioner described as serious illness resulting from his Diabetes etc., he was unable to perform his duties regularly with effect from 22.11.2018. Due to his ailment, he did not perform his duties and members of his family gave medical certificates, alongwith relevant documents of his treatment from time to time to the Bank establishment. He stated that after he was fit and discharged from hospital, he produced a medical certificate dated 5.6.2020 before the Bank. It is then pointed out that on 5.6.2020, some dispute relating to property between one Bhure Singh and the appellant-petitioner erupted, which made the appellant-petitioner lodge a First Information Report against Bhurey Singh. Bhurey Singh, as a measure of counterblast, lodged an FIR against the appellant-petitioner. In connection with Bhure Singh's the appellant-petitioner was arrested on 12.6.2020. He was granted bail by this Court on 10.11.2020 in the said crime. While the appellant-petitioner was in custody, he was suspended from service due to the long period of his absence and detention in custody. After release on bail, the appellant-petitioner requested the respondents to revoke his suspension and pay his salary. Instead, he was given a charge-sheet dated 10.3.2021. After service of the charge-sheet, he was deputed as an Assistant Manager, Baghpat Regional Office on 12.3.2021. He submitted a reply to the charge-sheet on 14.3.2021. He denied receipt of letters dated 16.3.2019 and 21.4.2019. The defence taken about his absence from 22.11.2018 till 12.6.2020, while posted at the Etawah branch of the Bank, was that he was seriously ill and admitted to the Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, Delhi. The Disciplinary Authority appointed an Inquiry Officer to hold inquiry. At the end of the inquiry, the Inquiry Officer submitted a report, on the basis of which, after issue of a show-cause notice to the appellant-petitioner, he was removed from service by the Assistant General Manager, Human Resources Management Section, Canara Bank, Lucknow. The appellant-petitioner preferred an appeal to the Appellate Authority on 10.4.2021. The appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Authority, the Deputy General Manager, Human Resources Management, Canara Bank, Head Office, Bangalore, affirming the Disciplinary Authority.

4. Aggrieved by the same, appellant-petitioner preferred a writ petition being Writ-A No. 7405 of 2021 (Manish Kumar v. Human Resource Management and others), which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 5.6.2024. Hence the pre