Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Thanking you, Yours faithfully.

Sd/-

(ML. Gopichander)."

7. The respondent Bank after receipt of the notice of resignation from services of the Bank by the petitioner, has passed an order bearing No. 686/3/SW/2671 dated March 13, 1995, which is served on the petitioner on March 22, 1995, and in that he is informed that his notice of resignation is rejected in view of contemplated disciplinary proceedings pending against him and further he was directed to report for duty immediately. The aforesaid communication reads as under:

"To Mr. M.L. Gopi Chander Officer MM II, (3313) Zonal Office, Bhubaneswar Res. add: No. 4 III Cross Gupta Layout, Ulsoor Bangalore- 8.
Dear Sir, Reg: Your resignation from Bank's service.
We refer to your letter dated December 20, 1994 and inform you that your resignation from Bank's service is not accepted in view of the contemplated disciplinary action pending against you. You are advised to report for duties immediately.
Yours faithfully, Sd/-
(K. Narayana Murthy) Deputy General Manager"

19. Per contra, the learned counsel Smt. Kasturi for the respondent Bank would contend that the service conditions of the employees of the respondent Bank are governed by Andhra Bank Service Regulations, 1982 and by virtue of Regulation 20(3) of the Regulations, the officer employee against whom the disciplinary proceedings are pending shall not leave or discontinue or resign from the services of the Bank without prior approval of the competent authority and notice of resignation given by such officer during the pendency of disciplinary proceedings shall not have effect unless the same is accepted by the disciplinary authority and since the respondent Bank had rejected the notice of resignation submitted by the petitioner informing his intention to resign voluntarily from service on March 13, 1995 itself, petitioner cannot contend that the respondent Bank is not justified in rejecting the notice of resignation submitted by the petitioner. Secondly, it is submitted that the Bank is justified in rejecting the request made by the petitioner in his application dated December 20, 1984, since the case filed by CBI was pending against the petitioner before the CBI Court and the contemplated disciplinary proceedings against him for the irregularities in respect of which CBI case had been filed against the petitioner and other irregularities said to have been committed during the period February 1, 1986 and July 1, 1986 and for the unauthorised absence from the services of the Bank from December 21, 1994. The learned counsel further contends that the order made by the respondent Bank on March 13, 1995 was sent to the petitioner by registered post with acknowledgment due on March 13, 1995 itself and therefore, when the communication was received by the petitioner is immaterial. Alternatively, it is submitted that even in the absence of any communication, petitioner was not supposed to have discontinued or leave the services of the Bank, since a case was pending against him in the CBI Court, Bangalore and further in view of Regulation 20(3) of the Service Regulations of the Bank unless the resignation is accepted and communication to that effect is sent to the petitioner.

8. What order?

27. Issues I and III can be taken together since they are interconnected. The disciplinary authority of the Bank had issued a charge memo dated September 13, 1986 and in that it was alleged that petitioner while he was working as a Manager of Jayanagar Branch of the Bank had, committed serious irregularities with the' clandestine motives, exposing the Bank to a great financial risk. After holding a regular domestic enquiry, the respondent Bank had imposed a punishment of censure and in the very same order, petitioner had been informed that the order of suspension made on July 21, 1986 is revoked and he is posted to work in the Zonal office of the Bank at Bhubaneswar. After reporting for duty at the Zonal Office, petitioner by his letter dated December 20, 1994 had informed the competent authority of the Bank of his intention to leave the services of the Bank with effect from March 20, 1995 i.e. after the expiry of three months' notice period as required under the Service Regulations of the Bank. By yet another letter dated December 20, 1994 he had informed the authorities of the Bank that he would be availing the joining time of seven days in view of his transfer from Bangalore to Zonal Office at Bhubaneshwar. Without even waiting for sanction of the leave, petitioner had left the place of his posting. The competent authority of the Bank by its correspondence dated March 13, 1995 which is served on the petitioner only on March 22, 1995 informs the petitioner that his intention to resign from the services of the Bank is not accepted in view of the contemplated disciplinary action against him.