W.P.(C) 5206/2002

Page 1 of 17

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

W.P.(C) No. 5206/2002

%

25^th May, 2015

SHRI VIJAY KUMAR NARANG

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr. B.K.Pal and Mr. K.K.Arora,

Advocates.

versus

UNION BANK OF INDIA & ORS

..... Respondents

Through:

Mr. O.P.Gaggar, Advocate

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1.

By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India, petitioner, who was an employee of the respondent no.1/Union

Bank of India, questions the orders passed by the respondent no.1/Bank

dated 20.1.1999, 23.4.1999 and 27.3.2001 whereby it has been held that the

petitioner’s services with the respondent no.1/Bank have come to an end on

account of abandonment of services by the petitioner. These orders of the

respondent no.1/Bank read as under:-

2015:DHC:4683

W.P.(C) 5206/2002

Page 2 of 17

“ORDER DATED 20.1.1999

UNION BANK OF INDIA

REGION OFFICE

Shaheed Bhagat Singh Place

Bangla Sahib Marg,

New Delhi-1

RO:DEL:STF:321/99

January 20, 1999

(Regd.A/d)

It is on record that Sh. V.K.Narang was absent from

duties from 04.11.1996 to 01.07.1997 and 03.07.1997 to till

date. A memo NZ STF 2618/97 dated 03.06.1997 was issued

to him to show cause why his continued absent, without valid

reasons, should not be treated as voluntary cessation of

employment as per clause 17 of the Bipartite Settlement and as

amended upto date. In compliance to this memo, he had

reported just for duty on 02.7.1999, thereafter continued remain

absent till date without any information/application for leave.

Sh. V.K.Narang has thus remained absent for more than

90 days consecutive days unauthorized and thereby under

himself liable for action under clause 17 of the Bipartite

Settlement that deal with voluntary cessation of employment by

the employees.

The Management is also satisfied that Sh. V.K.Narang

has no intention to joining duties for the following reasons:-

1. During his above absence, the following letter has

been sent asking him to resume duties, but he has failed to

comply with the instructions:-

Telegram dated 10.07.1997.

2. He has not cared to send intimation to the

Management as to the reason for remaining absent and/or

probable duration of his absence.

2015:DHC:4683

W.P.(C) 5206/2002

Page 3 of 17

3. He has been remaining absent without satisfying

the requisite conditions under which leave may be taken as per

rules of the Bank applicable to him.

Under Clause-17 of the Bipartite Settlement, Sh.

V.K.Narang is hereby given 30 days period to resume duties at

the branch. He is further required to satisfy the Management

that he has not taken up any employment or vocation and that

every intention of joining duties. If Sh. V.K.Narang does not

report for duty on or before 30 days from the date of this memo

of Okhla Branch and does not fulfill the conditions required

above for permitting him to resume duties, he will be deemed to

have been voluntarily retired from the bank’s services.

ORDER DATED 23.4.1999

MEMORANDUM

FROM:

UNION BANK OF INDIA

STAFF DEPARTMENT

REGIONAL OFFICE

NEW DELHI

TO:

SHRI V.K.NARANG

CLERK/CASHIER

OKHLA BRANCH,

N. DELHI

RO: DEL STF 1936:99

DATE: 23.04.1999

Attention of Sh. V.K. Narang is drawn towards our

Memorandum No. RD.Del STF:321/99 dated 20.1.99 wherein

he was required to resume duties at Okhla Branch within 30

days. Alternatively, Sh. Narang had to fulfill, the conditions

required from permitting him in resume duties. Further, he was

earlier absent from duties from 04.11.1996 to 01.07.97 and

2015:DHC:4683

W.P.(C) 5206/2002

Page 4 of 17

from 3.07.1997 to till date. However, Sh. Narang has neither

resume duties nor sent any communication within the given

time period. The same was duly acknowledged by him on

6.3.99.

In view o