O R D E R

The petitioner was employed with the Central Bank of India (CBI), Coonoor Branch as a Senior Manager. The terms and conditions of the petitioner’s employment are governed by the Central Bank of India (Officers’) Service Regulations, 1979 (Regulations). On 05.03.2007, he submitted a letter of resignation seeking to resign from the services of the Bank. Regulation 20 (2) provided for a notice period of 90 days, upon expiry of which, the employee stands relieved automatically.

2. There is no dispute on this position and Regulation 20 (2) states as follows:

“20- Termination of Service (1)………….

(2) An officer shall not leave or discontinue his service in the Bank without first giving a notice in writing of his intention to leave or discontinue his service or resign. The period of notice required shall be 3 months and shall be submitted to the Competent Authority as prescribed in these regulations.

Provided further that the Competent Authority may reduce the period of 3 months or remit the requirement of notice.”

3. Regulation 20 (2) provides for automatic resignation upon the employee seeking the same, with a notice period of three months. The Competent Authority has, under the proviso, been permitted to reduce the notice period or even remit the requirement of a notice. Thus it is a clear and unambiguous position that the employee concerned is entitled to exit the Bank after the notice period, except if the Bank specifically rejects the request for resignation. In this case, there has been no rejection of the petitioner’s request and the period of notice would draw to an end on 03.06.2007.

4. On 18.04.2007, the petitioner received a copy of letter addressed by Regional Office, Coimbatore to the Coonoor Branch of the Bank that states as follows, ‘The application for resignation from Bank’s service submitted by the member on 05.03.2007 is under process with us. Please advise the member that he cannot be deemed to have relieved from Bank’s service on the expiry of three months notice period unless and until a specific communication about acceptance of his resignation from Bank’s service has been received by him.’

5. This letter does not appear to be in tandem with the applicable Regulation in so far as the Regulation does not provide for an acceptance of resignation but only for a rejection of the employee’s application for resignation. On 04.05.2007, the petitioner was transferred to the International Business Branch (IBB) at Chennai and notwithstanding his request for resignation, he assumed charge on 14.05.2007. Between 25.05.2007 and 29.05.2007, a snap audit was conducted at his erstwhile Branch at Coonoor.

6. In the course of arguments, both the learned counsel would admit to the position that the petitioner had been asked to go to Coonoor and assist the conduct of the audit since he has been Senior Manager there until recently. The petitioner likewise accommodated the request. On 19.06.2007, the petitioner had received a draft memo of charges alleging certain irregularities in the management of the Coonoor branch to which, the petitioner replied on 06.09.2007 requesting that the charges be dropped. He stated that the audit objections that had been raised had been duly and fully addressed and explanations furnished.

7. The petitioner has also received his salary for the period when he assumed charge of the IBB branch from May to September, 2007. Thereafter, he applied for ordinary leave from 05.10.2007 to 13.10.2007 on the ground of ill health that was sanctioned. He sought extension of leave from 16.10.2007 to 27.10.2007 and on 24.10.2007 the same was rejected by the Bank. On 05.11.2007, he had been directed to appear before the Medical Board for examination vide phonogram vide even date, that made reference to a telegram issued earlier informing him that his absence was to be treated as unauthorized and on the basis of loss of pay.

8. On 17.11.2007, a memo was issued to the petitioner in regard to his unauthorized absence and