Sabita Dhar vs Ka Bank Nong Kyndong Ri Khasi Jaintia Rural Bank and Others

P.C. Phukan, J.—This writ appeal is presented against the judgment and order dated 9.3.95 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Rule No. 37(SH)/95.

The facts leading to this appeal are as follows:

Respondent No. 1 is a Regional Rural Bank called Ka Bank Nongkyndong Ri Khasi Jaintia Rural Bank, hereinafter referred to as ''the Bank'', with head office at Shillong operating throughout the territory of Meghalaya. The Appellant-writ Petitioner was appointed a Clerk-cum-Cashier on 1.12.83 and was posted at the head office of the Bank at Shillong on probation for a period of one year. Having completed successfully the probation, Appellant was duly confirmed. She was then promoted as Field Supervisor on 1.4.90 and since then she had been working as the Officer of Junior Management of the Bank. She was transferred and posted at Tyrsad Branch in January, 1991. After about 20 months she was transferred and posted at Nongspung Branch of the Bank which is about (sic)0 Kms. from Shillong, vide order dated 28.11.92. She said that she went to join at her place of transfer and found no accommodation available. She further said that it was not safe for an unmarried woman of different ethnic identity to live there. She then submitted representations for being posted her at any place other than Nongspung. Then Respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 15.10.93 (Annexure-XI to the writ petition) intimated her that the change of posting could be considered only after the Appellant resumed her duties. Her prayer being rejected, she was compelled to join her duties at Nongspung branch. She was then directed to join at Ardonga branch and she did so on 28.5.94. After two months she was brought back to the head office at Shillong where she joined on 22.7.94, but she was released from there on the same day directing her to join at Nongspung Branch by order dated 22.7.94 (Annexure XVI). She again represented that she should be posted in any other Branch except Nongspung. Having received any positive response, Appellant-writ Petitioner applied for leave. Respondent No. 2 issued notice dated 27.1.95 (Annexure-XVIII) intimating that unless the Appellant joined within 7 days it would be presumed that she had voluntarily abandoned duties or resigned from service. That was followed by another notice dated 17.2.95 (Annexure-XVIII(a) directing the Appellant-writ Petitioner to join at Nongspung latest by 28.2.95 further stating therein "If you fail to do so, you will have voluntarily vacated your service". Instead of carrying out the said order, Appellant-writ Petitioner approached this Court by filing Civil Rule No. 37(SH)/95 which was disposed of by the learned Single Judge by judgment dated 9.3.95 which reads as follows:

Heard Mr. S.K. Deb Purkayastha, learned Counsel for the Petitioner.

The Petitioner is directed to join the duties at Nongspung, East Khasi Hills within a period of one week from today. If she joins, then she will not be voluntarily retired by the Respondents. If she does not join within a week from today at the new place of posting, the Respondents will be at liberty to take whatever steps they find fit and proper.

Being aggrieved by. the aforesaid judgment and order, the writ Petitioner-Appellant has come up before this Court in the instant appeal, and this Court by an interim order dated 21.3.95 stayed the operation of the impugned judgment and order dated 9.3.95 and the transfer order dated 22.7.94 passed by the Administrative Officer of the Bank. As on today, the Appellant-writ Petitioner is working in the Head Office.

We have heard learned Counsels for both the parties.

Learned Senior Counsel Mr. N.M. Lahiri appearing for the Respondents submits that since the Appellant did not carry out the orders of the management it was open to the management to take appropriate action against her according to the Rules governing her service conditions. True, but the order dated 27.1.95 (Annexure-XVIII) and the order dated 17.2.95 (Annexure-XVIII(a) to the effect that in the event of the Appellant-writ Petitioner''s failure to report for duty by the date specified therein it would be presumed that she voluntarily abandoned her duties or resigned from service and would no longer be in service cannot be sustained for the simple reason that no show cause notice was ever served upon her, no enquiry was held and thereby she was denied the opportunity of being heard in violation of the principles of natural justice. We, therefore, set aside the order dated 27.1.95 (Annexure-XVIII) and the order dated 17.2.95 (Annexure-XVIII(a) and also the impugned judgment and order dated 9.3.95, inasmuch as, the learned Single Judge did not set aide those orders dated 27.1.95 and 17.2.95 and only directed the Appellant-writ Petitioner to join the duties at Nongspung within a week. However, we would like to make it clear that the Respondents will be at liberty to proceed against the Appellant-writ Petitioner as per the Rules with further liberty to pass fresh transfer order, if they so desire.

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the, parties are left to bear their own costs.