Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. The case of petitioner is that, her case is entirely covered and governed by Sub-regulation (2) of Regulation (20) of the Officers' Service Regulations, 1979. Be that as it may.

4. Petitioner was on a look out for better prospects and therefore, on being offered a post in Mphasis, petitioner submitted a notice of resignation dated 28th October 2006 in the format prescribed by the Bank . A copy of the resignation application dated 28th October 2006 is herein produced as Annexure B to the writ petition. In her application, she has specifically stated that, she is unable to give three months' notice since she has to join the new Company by 30th November 2006. In answer to the printed question in the format as to whether petitioner is willing to remit the amount in lieu of shortfall in notice, she has answered as 'YES'. Sub-regulation (2) of Regulation 20 of Officers' Service Regulations, 1979 provides for a normal notice of not less than three months. Subsequently, the Bank has evolved a policy of accepting notice of less than three months, however, subject to condition that, on acceptance of notice of resignation of less than three months by the competent authority, the employee shall reimburse to the Bank the salary for the period of shortfall in the notice period. It is her specific case that, in the Department of Information Technology itself, Bank has accepted notices of resignation submitted by any number of Officers curtailing the notice period, subject to condition that, the Officer shall reimburse to the Bank the salary for the period of shortfall in notice period in the notice of resignation, petitioner has specifically explained that, she has to join the new Company by 30th November 2006 and hence, she is unable to give three months' notice It is her further case that, petitioner has not received any specialized training by executing any bond except the routine training that every Officer in the Department of Information Technology is given. Implementation of Core Banking Solutions (CBS) was commenced by the Bank long ago in the year 2005 itself and even after such commencement of implementation of Core Banking Solutions, resignations submitted by any number of Officers in the Department of Information Technology have been accepted by the Bank and even curtailing the notice period. The same has been specifically pointed out vide Annexure G, produced along with the rejoinder filed by learned Counsel for petitioner, containing the names of Officers who have resigned/retired and transferred out of the Core Banking Solutions Project since June 2006, along with their designation, portfolio handled in CBS, date of relief and nature of relief.

6. The principal submission canvassed by learned Counsel appearing for petitioner is that, the Bank cannot insist the petitioner that, she should work in the Bank till the end of March 2007 contrary to there own Regulations, resulting in infringement of fundamental rights of the petitioner guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business as contemplated under Article 19(6) of the Constitution of India and it also denies the petitioner, right to life and livelihood guaranteed to her under Article 21 of the Constitution of India in as much as it also forces the petitioner to work with the Bank against her will which is prohibited under Article 23 of the Constitution of India. It defeats the very rule of law contemplated under Article 14 and militates against mandate of Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India. Therefore, he submitted that, the impugned action of the Bank is capricious, whimsical, unfair, unjust, unreasonable, irrational and ultra vires the Regulations, and the same is also without authority of law and grossly illegal apart from being patently unconstitutional, void and unenforceable. It is the specific submission of the learned Counsel for petitioner that, in the present case, the Bank has no authority of law, whatsoever to reject the notice of resignation submitted by petitioner. Further he vehemently submitted that, the reasons assigned by the Bank for rejecting the notice of resignation submitted by petitioner is not only ultra vires Regulation 20, but is also patently discriminatory and untenable and that, the Bank cannot act contrary to its own Regulations by putting a spanner in the career prospects of petitioner. The Bank, in fact has relieved quite a number of Officers working in the Department of Information Technology itself on accepting their resignation and voluntary retirement as the case may be during the year 2006 long after commencement of implementation of Core Banking Solutions (CBS). To substantiate his submission, he placed strong reliance on the list of Officers, working in the Core Banking Solutions Project, who have been relieved by accepting their resignations since 2006. The said list is produced as Annexure G to the rejoinder filed by learned Counsel for petitioner in reply to the statement of objections filed by learned Counsel for Bank. The said list contains the name, designation, portfolio etc. of nearly ten employees in the same Project and that, another person has also been relieved very recently. Therefore, he submitted that, the rejection of the resignation of the petitioner by the Bank defeats the rule of law as contemplated under Article 14 of the Constitution of India and militates against mandate of Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India. To substantiate the said submission further, he placed heavy reliance on Sub-regulation (2) of Regulation 20 of the Officers' Service Regulations, 1979. He submitted that, the only power which the Bank has is in respect of curtailment of notice period. Petitioner being faced with discriminatory rejection of her request for curtailment of notice period, sought relief at the end of notice period of three months. He further placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Punjab National Bank v. P.K. Mittal reported in 1989 Supp. (2) SCC 175 and submitted that, in view of the well settled principles of law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment, the Bank has no authority of law to reject the notice of resignation submitted by petitioner. Further, he vehemently submitted that, this aspect has been considered by this Court in the case of Gopichander M.L v. AndhraBank reported in 2002 -- III- LLJ October page 306, wherein this Court has held that, "the sub Regulation does not provide for any acceptance or rejection of the resignation by the employer and therefore, by operation of law, resignation would become effective on the expiry of three months notice period. Further, he placed reliance on two other judgments of the Apex Court reported in (2004) 9 Supreme Court Cases P.461 (Reserve Bank of India and Anr. v. Cecil Dennis Solomon and Anr.) and (Jeewanlal Ltd. and Ors. v. Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act and Ors.) and submitted that, the Apex Court in the latter judgment has held that, the Courts must adopt a beneficent rule of construction and observed that, "In their anxiety to advance beneficent purpose of legislation, the Courts must not yield to the temptation of seeking ambiguity when there is none." Further, to meet the stand taken by respondent - Bank in the statement of objections, learned Counsel for petitioner relied upon another judgment of this Court in the case of Santhanam v. Union of India and Anr. decided on 24th March 1969 reported in 1969 (1) Mys. Law Journal P. 591 and submitted that, the plea regarding inconvenience cannot be accepted, as in interpreting Rule 14(8), the inconveniences that may be caused to the respondent cannot be taken into consideration. Therefore, he submitted that, in view of Sub-regulation (2) of Regulation 20 of the Officers Service Regulations, 1979, Bank has no authority whatsoever, to reject the request of petitioner for resignation after notice of three months in view of the well settled law laid down by the Apex Court and this Court. Hence, the impugned order cum communication and the impugned communication vide Annexures C and F respectively are liable to be set aside.

7. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for respondent - Bank, inter alia, contended and substantiated that, the impugned order cum communication and impugned communication vide Annexures C and F issued by Bank are in strict compliance of the relevant Regulations of the Bank. He submitted that, the request of the petitioner could not be considered due to pendency of the work in the Core Banking Solutions Project, which is scheduled to be completed by the end of March 2007 and immediately after completion of the said Project, on 31st March 2007, petitioner's case will be considered and she would be relieved from the services of the Bank. Further, he submitted that, the Bank, has, in a crystal clear manner clarified that, Bank has initiated the process of Core Banking Solutions and has to cover over 1500 branches under Core Banking Solutions (CBS) by March 2007 and the Officers inducted to work in the Department of Information Technology (DIT) set-up are well trained to discharge the specialized nature of work and leaving the Organization in the middle of the Project will hamper/delay in completing the Project. Therefore, he submitted that, having regard to the expertise of the petitioner in the said field and since she has been associated with the implementation of the Core Banking Solutions Project since the beginning and is well versed with the requirements/modalities, she has also been assigned with the important port folio of 'Patch Management' without which, the various branches of the Bank already introduced to Core Banking System will experience innumerable difficulties and any failure in this regard will ultimately hamper the Project of Core Banking itself. As any new person introduced will require extensive training besides sound knowledge of Banking and hitherto computerization platforms like ALPM, IBBS, BANCS 2000 etc., it will not be feasible for the Bank at this stage to look out for new recruits/substitutes, as the same leads to delay and disruption in completion of the Core Banking Project in a planner manner and public at large will be affected. It is therefore most imperative that, the key persons involved in the Project including the petitioner remain at least till the end of March 2007, on which date the Project is scheduled to conclude and the same was conveyed to her in response to her request for resignation. The contention of the petitioner that she has not received any specialized training except the routine training that every Officer in the Department of Information Technology is given, cannot be accepted for the reason that, she has been given training in Direct Recruit Officers Programme - Phase I, I Develop 2000 Seminar, Computer - Unix, Advanced DBA (Data Base Administrator), Computer - Oracle, Cheque Truncation, Computer-Oracle, and Training on customer relationship Management- CBS. Therefore, he vehemently submitted that, all that the Bank is interested is, in the importance of the customer oriented Project conceived in public interest to provide benefits to the customers and that, individual interest must yield in favour of public interest and it is not as if the Bank is averse to her resignation or there are any other reasons to refuse her request except for the completion of a major Project conceived and put into practice which is in the mid way for public good. Further, he submitted that, when the petitioner was working as Data Base administrator, particularly, she was trained and promoted and she was not subjected to any transfer during the period despite her promotion only with a view to conceive the Project smoothly. The Bank has in unequivocal terms informed the petitioner that, the Project will need her services till at least the end of March 2007. Taking into consideration the totality of the case and importance of the Project, her request could not be considered and the same is not intentional, deliberate and that, the Bank has got all appreciation for the nature of work rendered by her and leaving the Project in midway would affect the public in general and the Bank in particular. Therefore, taking into consideration all these factors, the request of petitioner to relieve her on 27th January 2007 was refused and the said action of Bank is just and reasonable and is well within the parameter of the Regulations of the Bank and no much harm or injustice is caused to the petitioner. To substantiate the said submission, he placed reliance on particularly paragraph 112 of the judgment of the Apex Court (Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Limited and Anr. v. Brojo Nath Ganguly and Anr.) and submitted that, the employer would be justified in refusing to accept the employee's resignation when an employee wants to leave in the middle of a work which is urgent or important and for the completion of which his or her presence and participation are necessary. Therefore, he submitted that, the writ petition filed by petitioner is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits.

12. Petitioner has not suppressed anything in her resignation application submitted by her in the prescribed format dated 28th October 2006 vide Annexure B. She has specifically pointed out at item No. 4 in the said application the reason for Voluntary Retirement/Resignation as "Better Prospects - Mphasis, Koramangala, Bangalore as Project Lead". Nor it is the case of respondent - Bank that, they are exercising power under Sub-regulation (3) of Regulation 20. The only reason given by Bank is that, the Bank has initiated the process for implementation of Core Banking Solutions (CBS) and has to cover 1500 branches under Core Banking Solutions by March 2007 and that, the Officers inducted to work in Department of Information Technology (DIT) set up are well trained to discharge the specialized nature of work and leaving the Organization in the middle of the Project will hamper/delay the completion of the project. The said reason assigned for rejecting the resignation application submitted by petitioner is not at all justifiable when the respondent - Bank itself has accepted nearly a dozen of Officers working under the Core Banking Soloutions Project, as per the list of Officers, so relieved from the services of the Bank, vide Annexure G to the rejoinder filed by learned Counsel for petitioner in reply to the objections filed by Bank. The said list consists often Officers, who are being relieved of the services of the Bank and it is orally submitted that, one more Officer working in the same wing (DIT) has been relieved very recently by the Bank. Therefore, it does not lie in the mouth of respondent - Bank to say that, since specialized training in respect of the Core Banking Solutions has been given to petitioner, she cannot be relieved till the end of March 2007 when the fact is otherwise, as stated above. The petitioner is before this Court, seeking enforcement of her rights under the Officers' Service Regulations of the Bank. Therefore, the reliance placed by learned Counsel for respondent - Bank regarding convenience cannot be the basis for rejection of statutory rights of petitioner. In reply to the said stand taken by learned Counsel for respondent, learned Counsel for petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court regarding convenience reported in Santhanam v. Union of India and Anr. decided on 24th March 1969 reported in 1969 (1) Mys. Law Journal P. 591 Santhanam reported in 1969 MLJ 591 wherein the Division Bench of this Court has held that, the plea of inconvenience cannot be accepted, as in interpreting the Rule 14(8), the inconveniences that may be caused to respondent cannot be taken into consideration. The observation of the Apex Court while interpreting Rule 14(8) in one other decision is as under: