Serna, J. -- 1. Heard the parties.

2. This appeal is preferred by the General Manager, Appellate Authority, Bank of India.

3. The challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 14.8.2003 passed by the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court affirming the order of the Single Judge passed on 2.5.2003.

4. Briefly stated, the facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are as follows:

The respondent joined the appellant Bank as a Probationary officer in 1972. He was thereafter promoted as Middle Management Officer, Grade II in 1981. The respondent unauthorisedly absented himself from duty with effect from 1.2.1994 onwards. By a letter dated 7.2.1994, he was asked to report for duty immediately. On 7.2.1994 the respondent applied for extraordinary leave from 1.2.1994 to 31.3.1994. He did not report for duty on 1.4.1994. On 10.5.1994 the Bank requested the respondent to immediately report for duty. On 19.5.1994 the respondent instead of reporting for duty or replying the letter dated 10.5.1994 continued his unauthorised absence and opted for voluntarily retiring from the services of the appellant Bank. In response to the request of the respondent the appellant Bank by letters dated 13.7.1994 and 8.11.1994 requested the respondent to appear for an exit interview to consider his request for voluntary retirement. This was repeated by another letter dated 9.7.1996. In the interregnum the appellant Bank decided to draw a disciplinary proceeding against the respondent. On 9.7.1996 the following charges were framed against the respondent:

"I. Shri Mohd. Nizamuddin availed a loan of Rs.80,000/- from Secunderabad Branch for purchase of vehicle. However, he misutilised the funds so lent without actually purchasing any vehicle and subsequently deposited an amount of Rs.95,120/- after a lapse of 2 years and 2 months to close the account. '

2. Shri Mohd. Nizamuddin availed LTC advance of Rs.39,780/during October 1993, originally proposing to avail to LTC facilities during 16.9.1993 to 21.9.1993. However, he availed LTC facilities during the period within which he was unauthorisedly absent, and submitted claim to the branch. The claim, was therefore, not sanctioned. Mr. Nizamuddin, thereafter, did not refund the LTC advance availed by him. In this manner, he misutilised the advance of Rs.39,780/-.

3. Shri Mohd. Nizamuddin remained unauthorisedly absent from duties from 1.2.1994 and submitted leave application dated 7.2.1994 for extraordinary leave from 1.2.1994 to 31.3 .1994. Mr. Nizamuddin did not report for duties on 1.4.1994. The branch reminded him to report for duties vide letters dated 7.2.1994 and 10.5.1994. The registered letters sent by the branch were returned undelivered. It is observed that Shri Mohd. Nizamuddin did not report for duties till date. In this manner Shri Nizamuddin remained unauthorisedly absent from duties and left the headquarters without prior permission from the competent authority."

5. The aforesaid charge-sheet was sent at the address of the respondent and it was received by the family member of the respondent, namely, Naseem Fatima, wife of the respondent, on 12.7.1996. Thereafter, by the letters dated 30.8.1996,11.9.1996,20.9.1996 and 7.10.1996 the appellant Bank informed the respondent about the appointment of inquiry officer, and the date of inquiry proceeding. Since the respondent failed to participate in the inquiry proceeding held on 19.9.1996 the copies of the inquiry proceedings were sent to him, intimating him about the next date of inquiry proceeding. On 11.10.1996 the respondent in response to the letter dated 7.10.1996, contended that he had already submitted his resignation letter about three years back and the same was pending acceptance by the appellant Bank. It was further stated that in the absence of any communication from the Bank on his resignation within the stipulated time, his resignation was deemed to have been accepted and the respon