S. Prabhakar Rao vs Bank of Baroda, Baroda and Others

The petitioner was appointed as an officer in the Bank of Baroda in the year 1970, by the General Manager, the Head Officer of which is at Bombay. Thereafter, he was sanctioned leave which was to come to an end on 3rd July, 1983. The petitioner by his letter dated 21st June, 1983 sought for two and half years study leave. It was also stated in that letter in case of non-acceptance for sanctioned leave, the letter itself may be treated as resignation and his termination benefits be settled. However, after nearly four years, on 31st January, 1987, he has addressed the authorities requesting them to permit him to join duty. Thereafter, the Assistant General Manager, by his letter dated 19th June, 1987 said that his resignation was effective from 21st June, 1983. Challenging the same, the present writ petition was filed on 21st March, 1988.

It seems that thereafter a letter dated 9th March, 1988, was received by the petitioner from the office on 25th March, 1988, stating that the petitioner is required to submit his assets and liabilities statement on or before 15th March, 1988, otherwise the authorities will be taking necessary action in the matter. This letter was issued by the Regional Manager.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has advanced three - fold contentions viz., (1) the petitioner was appointed admittedly by the General Manager and therefore acceptance of the resignation by the Asst. General Manager is illegal as he has no jurisdiction to do so, (2) Acceptance of the resignation after withdrawal is bad, (3) Once the authority have required the petitioner by letter dated 9th March, 1988 directing him to submit the assets and liabilities statement, it must be deemed that he has been continued in service.

The answer to these contentions depends upon the provision enacted in Regulation 20(2) of the Regulations framed by the Bank of Baroda (Officers'') Service Regulations, 1979, which reads :

"(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 the service or resign. The period of notice required shall be three months and shall be submitted to the Competent Authority as prescribed in these Regulations.

Provided that the Competent Authority may reduce the period of three months or remit the requirement of notice".

It is a fact that after the letter of the petitioner dated 21st June, 1983, no letter was issued by the authority concerned and that thereafter in January, 1987 the petitioner came to represent to the authorities concerned enabling him to join the Bank. Then the letter of the Assistant General Manager was given, stating that his resignation had become effective right from 21st June, 1983. Sub-Regulation (2) is the crucial provision that adjudicates the issue involved. The notice postulated under that sub-rule (2) of Regulation 20, by the employee, no doubt, must be of three months duration. If Regulation 20(3) is analysed wherein in cases any disciplinary proceedings are pending as against an employee, then if the employee intends to resign, the same cannot be done unless the approval is accorded by the Competent Authority after due acceptance by him. In other words, in case of the position obtaining under sub-rule (2), no approval nor any communication is required to be sent to the employee concerned and even three months duration is impliedly exonerated by the authority concerned.

So far as the letter of the Assistant General Manager is concerned, it is not the acceptance that has been made by the Assistant General Manager but he has only made it clear that his resignation sought for by him has been effective right from 21st June, 1983 and that, therefore, the question that he has no jurisdiction or is he competent authority, does not arise. The notice given on 21st June, 1983 by the employee must be deemed to have been accepted, for which no further action is necessary from the Bank because ipso-facto the approval laid down in sub-rule (2) of Regulation 20 will come into play and it was only made clear by the Assistant General Manager by his letter dated 19th June, 1987,

In so far as the communication dated 9th March, 1987 wherein the petitioner was directed to submit his assets and liabilities is concerned, it is purely a routine matter where a regional office, which is concerned with numerous employees of the Bank, seeks for the filing of the assets and liabilities and that, therefore, the fact that the petitioner must be deemed to have been continued in service, is absolutely without merit and substance. The machinery is concerned with the routine matters pertaining to thousands of employees concerned. Therefore, extention of time which is purely granted by the clerical personal, even after obtaining the signature of the Assistant General Manager, cannot be said to be having any nexus with the resignation letter given by him earlier on 21st June, 1983 itself.

Hence all the above contentions are baseless and are therefore rejected.

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs.