Chairman Uttarakhand Gramin Bank And Others vs Brijmohan Singh Rawat

Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ

Heard Sri Dharmendra Barthwal, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Navneesh Negi, learned counsel for the respondent-writ petitioner and, with their consent, the Special Appeal is disposed of at the stage of admission.

This Special Appeal is preferred against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 500 of 2014 dated 12.07.2018.

The respondent herein filed Writ Petition (S/S) No. 500 of 2014 seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 28.02.2014 passed by the second respondent; and for a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent to remit the recovery made against his gratuity.

Facts, to the limited extent necessary, are that the respondent-writ petitioner submitted his resignation on 16.08.2013. He claims to have given three months' prior notice which, according to him, is evident from the fact that the letter of resignation was accepted by proceedings dated 14.11.2013 with effect from 16.11.2013. Thereafter, the appellant-Bank issued proceedings dated 28.02.2014 for recovery of three months' salary, from the petitioner, of Rs. 1,63,599/- for want of prior notice of resignation from the respondent-writ petitioner.

In the order under appeal, the learned Single Judge observed that the respondent-writ petitioner had put the Management on notice that he intended to leave the job; he was not issued any show cause notice before a decision was taken by the Management to recover the three months' salary amounting to Rs. 1,63,599/-; salary was property within the meaning of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India; there was violation of principles of natural justice; the respondent-writ petitioner's resignation was strictly in accordance with law; the respondent-writ petitioner had placed medical prescriptions on record; and he was on medical leave.

The learned Single Judge further observed that, in so far as the plea raised by the respondents in the counter affidavit regarding the respondent-writ petitioner's unauthorized leave was concerned, it was always open to the Management to proceed against the respondent-writ petitioner in accordance with law. Since no notice was issued to the respondent-writ petitioner that he was on unauthorized leave, the impugned order dated 28.02.2014 was quashed, and the respondents were directed to refund the amount of Rs. 1,63,599/-, to the respondent-writ petitioner, within a period of eight weeks.

The case of the appellant-Bank, in short, is that, while the respondent-writ petitioner had submitted his resignation on 16.08.2013, he initially requested that he be relieved on 01.10.2013, which he thereafter extended till 16.11.2013; he was on unauthorized absence from duty from 16.08.2013 till 16.11.2013; the Regulations require an employee, who seeks to resign from service, either to pay three months' salary in lieu of notice or to give three months' prior notice of resignation; it is only if the petitioner had worked during the period from 16.08.2013 till 16.11.2013, could it be held that the respondent-writ petitioner was on duty during the notice period of three months; the specific assertion in the counter affidavit, that the respondent-writ petitioner was on unauthorized absence from 16.08.2013 to 16.11.2013, has not been denied by way of a rejoinder affidavit; while the order under appeal states that the respondent-writ petitioner was on sanctioned medical leave, no document was produced by the respondent-writ petitioner, before the learned Single Judge, to show that any such medical leave was sanctioned by the appellant-Bank to him; and even if the learned Single Judge is presumed to be justified in holding that the appellant-Bank had acted in violation of principles of natural justice, he should have given the appellant-Bank an opportunity to take action in compliance with the rules of natural justice, and should not have directed refund of the amount within a specified time-frame; and the learned Single Judge was wholly unjustified in recording a finding that the respondent-writ petitioner's resignation was strictly in accordance with law.

Questions whether the respondent-writ petitioner was sanctioned medical leave by the appellant-Bank from 16.08.2013 to 16.11.2013, or whether he was on unauthorized absence justifying recovery of three months' salary from his retiral dues, are all matters which the appellant-Bank should examine in the first instance, after giving the respondent-writ petitioner an opportunity to show cause thereagainst. The fact, however, remains that the respondent-writ petitioner's service had been brought to an end on his resignation being accepted on 16.11.2013, and he is being denied a part of his retiral benefits for the past six years. Suffice it, in such circumstances, to set aside the order under appeal to the extent the learned Single Judge has recorded a finding that the petitioner's resignation was strictly in accordance with law, or that the petitioner was on sanctioned medical leave. The order under appeal, directing refund of the amount of Rs. 1,63,599/- within a period of eight weeks, is also set aside.

The order, impugned in the writ petition, shall be treated as a show cause notice, to which the respondent-writ petitioner shall submit his reply within three weeks from today. The appellant-Bank shall, within four weeks from the date of receipt of the respondent-writ petitioner's reply to the show cause notice, pass a reasoned order, and communicate its decision to the respondent-writ petitioner. Needless to state that any order, which the appellant-Bank may pass, shall be without being influenced by any observation made either in the order under appeal, or in the order now passed by us. It is also made clear that, in case the appellant-Bank is satisfied that the respondent-writ petitioner's absence from duty was for just and valid reasons and his period of absence should be condoned, it shall then make payment, of the amounts recovered from his retiral dues, to the petitioner within four weeks thereafter.

The Special Appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. No costs.