K. Vishwanathan vs The Deputy General Manager/Disciplinary Authority Indian Bank, C.O. Vigilance Department, General Manager (I), Indian Bank, Executive Director, Indian Bank and Indian Bank

T.S. Sivagnanam, J.—The challenge in the above writ petitions is to the orders of punishment passed against the petitioner.

In W.P. No. 9266 of 2000, the petitioner has questioned the correctness of the charge memo dated 01.02.2000 charging the petitioner for

unauthorised absence from duty from 28.06.1995 which culminated in an order dated 12.04.1999 imposing a major penalty of reduction of pay by

two stages in the time scale of pay drawn by the petitioner for a period of two years and that the petitioner will not earn increments of pay during

the period of two years and on expiry of the two year period, the reduction will have the effect of postponement of future increments of his pay.

In W.P. No. 9267 of 2000, the petitioner has questioned the charge memo dated 01.02.2000 charging the petitioner for unauthorised absence

from 19.12.1997 even after the imposition of punishment by order dated 12.04.1999 and even thereafter failed to report for duty, which ultimately

culminated in an order of punishment dated 29.01.2007 imposing the major penalty of compulsory retirement from service. The appeals which

were filed by the petitioner against the orders of punishment came to be dismissed and the petitioner is before this Court.

Background facts:

The petitioner joined the service of the respondent Bank on 03.08.1970 as clerk and during June 1984, the petitioner was posted as Assistant

Manager at Teynampet Branch which post is a Junior Management Grade Scale -I post. By order dated 14.09.1994, the petitioner was

transferred to the Regional Office at Kancheepuram. According to the petitioner, as he was suffering from acute gastric ulcer, needing timely home

food and proper medical treatment, he could not move out of Madras and further his wife was in a non transferable post, employed as Assistant

Section Officer in the Tamil Nadu Secretariat. By order dated 27.06.1995, the petitioner was relieved from the Teynampet Branch in which

branch the petitioner was working from 06.06.1984. Even prior to the order date 27.06.1995, the Manager of the Teynampet Branch by letter

dated 02.02.1995 addressed the Assistant General Manager forwarded with his recommendations the representation received from the petitioner

for reconsidering and cancelling the posting orders to Regional Office, Kancheepuram. On 05.07.1995, the petitioner addressed the General

Manager (Admin.) stating that he had requested the change of posting to nearby branch on medical grounds and he was not favoured with a reply

from the Chairman and stated that he will not be able to report to Kancheepuram, since he was already under treatment and requested to grant

one year time or until a new branch posting is made. The petitioner further stated that he shall submit his leave letter along with fitness certificate at

the time of joining duty. This letter dated 05.07.1995 was followed by another letter dated 12.09.1995 reiterating the request for reconsideration

and cancellation of posting orders to Kancheepuram. Subsequently, on 14.09.1995, the petitioner furnished a medical certificate which stated

about his health condition during the relevant point of time. The petitioner made further representation on 16.09.1995 through the Manager of the

Teynampet Branch which was recommended and forwarded to the General Manager (personnel) by the Senior Manager''s letter dated

25.01.1996. In the mean time, the Chief Manager on 02.04.1996 reported to the Personnel Department stating that the petitioner has been

relieved from Teynampet Branch on 27.06.1995 but he is yet to join at Kancheepuram and since the order of transfer was not cancelled, the Chief

Manager requested for instructions in the matter. According to the petitioner, he went to Kancheepuram on 28.06.1996 to join duty but was

informed that a substitute had already been posted in his place and that he has been promoted and posted as Scale II Officer at

Vadamadhimangalam Branch, Tiruvannamalai District. On 23.10.1996, the petitioner represented to the Zonal Manager renouncing his promotion

as Scale II Officer and requested for consideration of his request. Copy of the said representation dated 23.10.1996 was also marked to the

Regional Manager, Regional Office, at Kancheepuram. On 18.10.1997, the petitioner addressed another representation to the Deputy General

Manager (Personnel) reiterating the reasons stated earlier and requested that he may be posted in any branch in Madras City. The petitioner also

cited various instances which according to the petitioner were done by him during his service for the welfare of the bank. On 18.12.1997, a charge

memo was served on the petitioner stating that he had absented from duty from 28.06.1995 unauthorisedly after being relieved on 27.06.1995

from Teynampet Branch and that he neither reported for duty at Kancheepuram nor submitted any leave application for his absence. Therefore, it

was stated that the petitioner was unauthorisedly absent from duty on 28.06.1995 and failed to obey the instructions of higher authorities contained

in the relieving order dated 27.06.1995. These acts were stated to constitute a breach of Regulation 13-I of Indian Bank Officers Employees

Conduct Rules 1976 and if the allegations were proved would constitute breach of Regulation 3-I in that the petitioner failed to take all possible

steps to ensure and to protect the interest of the bank and discharge his duties with utmost devotion and diligence and as per Regulation 24 a

breach of Regulation 3-I was deemed to constitute a misconduct and is punishable under Regulation 4. The petitioner was granted 15 days time to

submit his reply. Parallely, the petitioner had been requesting for reconsideration of his transfer by representations dated 19.12.1997 and

31.12.1997. The Regional Manager, Kancheepuram, by letter dated 03.01.1998 informed the petitioner to contact the zonal office and get

instructions regarding the rejoining of duty since as per their records the petitioner has been posted to Vadamadhimangalam Branch by order dated

14.05.1996. The petitioner submitted his explanation to the charge memo on 12.01.1998, by communication dated 11.03.1998, the Assistant

General Manager informed the petitioner that his request for posting to Central Office or any Branch in Chennai City is declined and advised him to

report for duty at Vadamadhimangalam Branch, Tiruvannamalai District. There has been subsequent representations made by the petitioner for

retaining him at Chennai and also stating that he had sustained injuries in a road traffic accident. These representations were not favourably

considered and petitioner was advised to report for duty at Vadamadhimangalam. A departmental enquiry was commenced by appointing an

Enquiry Officer. The petitioner participated in the enquiry proceedings and the petitioner was also assisted by a defence assistant in the inquiry. The

Presenting Officer on behalf of the bank examined their witnesses and marked documents and the petitioner was also given opportunity to lead

evidence and mark his documents.

The Enquiry Officer by his report dated 16.12.2008 held that the petitioner is guilty of the charge. The petitioner was afforded an opportunity to

submit his objections to the Enquiry Officer''s report and by reply dated 05.01.1999, the petitioner submitted his objections. The disciplinary

authority by order dated 12.04.1999, imposed penalty of reduction of pay by two stages for two years during which period, the petitioner would

not earn increments and after the expiry of the period, the reduction will have the effect of postponement of future increments. The petitioner

preferred an appeal to the General Manager by appeal petition dated 27.05.1999, which was to be dismissed by order dated 13.11.1999.

It is further stated that after the imposition of said major penalty, the Assistant General Manager by communication dated 22.11.1999 stated

that the petitioner''s request for posting at Chennai was declined by letter dated 11.03.1998 and request to join at Kancheepuram was also

declined vide letter dated 02.04.1998 and that the petitioner was advised by letter dated 22.07.1998 to report for duty at Vadamadhimangalam

and since he has failed to report for duty and continued to remain absent from 09.12.1997 till the date of the said letter dated (22.11.1999)

without submitting leave application or obtaining sanction. The petitioner was called upon to submit his explanation, which was given by the

petitioner on 13.12.1999. The disciplinary authority being not satisfied with the explanation dated 13.12.1999 issued a charge memo dated

01.02.2000 containing two articles of charge namely that despite issuance of charge memo on 18.12.1997, for unauthorised absence from

28.06.1995. The petitioner failed to report for duty and thus he has been unauthorisedly absented from duty even after 19.12.1997 without

submitting leave application or obtaining leave sanction from the competent authority. The second charge being that the petitioner disobeyed the

lawful order of higher authorities, by not reporting for duty at Vadamadhimangalam Branch. The petitioner was granted 15 days time to submit his

reply in defence. On 12.02.2000, the petitioner submitted a petition to the Executive Director of the Bank to review the order of punishment

imposed on the first charge memo. On 17.02.2000, the petitioner submitted his explanation to the second charge memo dated 01.02.2000. The

appeal given for review the punishment on the first charge memo came to be rejected by the Executive Director of the Bank by order dated

28.04.2000. The inquiry was ordered on the second charge memo by an order dated 20.05.2000. At that stage, the petitioner filed W.P. No.

9267/2000, questioning the charge memo dated 01.02.2000. An Inquiry Officer came to be appointed to enquiry into the second charge memo

and a report was submitted by the enquiry authority holding that the charges are proved. The finding of the enquiry officer was forwarded to the

petitioner and the petitioner submitted his comments on 28.01.2003. Thereafter, the matter was considered by the disciplinary authority and the

penalty of compulsory retirement was imposed on the petitioner by order dated 29.01.2007. The appeal petition filed on 22.02.2007 was rejected

on 15.05.2007. Subsequently, the petitioner filed W.P.M.P. No. 421 of 2009 in W.P. No. 9267 of 2000 for amendment of the prayer to quash

the order of compulsory retirement which came to be ordered on 09.07.2009. Thus, the petitioner is before this Court in the above two Writ

Petitions questioning the correctness of the orders of penalty imposed on him.

Contentions on behalf of the petitioner:

Mr. N.G.R.Prasad, the learned Counsel for the petitioner questioned the correctness of the impugned orders on various grounds and would

submit that since the allegations in both the charge memo related to same set of facts, and common arguments are being advanced in both the writ

petitions.

The first among the several contentions was that the charge against the petitioner that he absented without leave from 28.06.1995 is incorrect

since the petitioner had submitted the leave letter dated 05.07.1995 and that the finding of the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate

authority stating that the said letter dated 05.07.1995 is not a leave letter is perverse and therefore, this Court has to interfere in the said finding. It

is next contended that the disciplinary authority exceeded beyond the scope of the allegation contained in the charge memo dated 18.12.1997 by

holding that the petitioner did not report for duty at Kancheepuram till 22.07.1998 and that the recommendation letters of the Branch Manager of

the Teynampet Branch and the Chief Manager by letters dated 02.02.1995 and 18.06.1996 were not taken into consideration. It is further stated

that the petitioner cannot be stated to be absent without leave after 14.05.1996 when he was transferred on promotion to Vadamadhimangalam

Branch which promotion came to be declined by the petitioner on 05.06.1996 and 23.10.1996. Therefore, having promoted the petitioner to the

next higher post namely the post of Scale II Officer, it is deemed that the allegations contained in the charge memo dated 18.12.1997 does not

survive any longer. Further, the petitioner having declined to accept the promotion by submitting his letters dated 15.06.1996 and 23.10.1996, no

fresh orders of posting in the cadre of Junior Grade Scale I were issued and therefore, the question of unauthorised absence does not arise. It is

further stated that the petitioner cannot be compelled to accept the order of promotion. The petitioner after having declined the promotion, was not

allowed to join at Kancheepuram which alone would be sufficient to hold that there is no unauthorised absence.

Learned Counsel relied on the observations of the Enquiry Officer in his report wherein, the Enquiry Officer stated that the petitioner had an

intention to join. Learned Counsel would further set out the various contributions made by the petitioner to the bank and that the petitioner was an

honest officer and has been put to irreparable trauma on account of the impugned order. Finally, it is contended that the punishment imposed on

the petitioner is excessive and calls for interference by this Court.

Learned Counsel relied on the decisions of the Hon''ble Supreme Court reported in Hotel Ambassador Pallava (represented by its Executive

Assistant Manager, Sri Vasant Sampth), Chennai v. Presiding Officer, Second Additional Labour Court, Chennai and Anr. 2005 (4) LLN 654,

Raj Bahadur Sharma (Dead) Thr. L.RS. Vs. Union of India and Others, , D. Ramaswami Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, ,

Facts as stated by the respondent Bank:

Mr. P. Renganatha Reddy, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Bank would submit that the bank had been extraordinarily lenient

towards the petitioner and that inspite of the indulgence granted the petitioner refused to obey the lawful orders of the management which resulted

in the impugned orders of punishment.

Learned Counsel would further submit that there is no allegation of any procedural irregularity or violation of any provisions of the bank

regulations and the enquiry proceedings were conducted in a fair and free manner, the petitioner was afforded adequate opportunity to defend

himself and he was assisted by a defence assistant in the enquiry proceedings, full and effective opportunity was given to the petitioner to bring out

his defence and after considering the all the aspects of the matter, the disciplinary authority initially imposed a penalty of reduction of pay which

though classified under major penalty ought to be construed as a lenient view taken by the management. It is further stated that even thereafter, the

petitioner did not endeavour to obey the lawful orders of the management which resulted in the second charge memo and even in said proceedings

the petitioner was afforded reasonable and adequate opportunity to set out his defence which ultimately culminated in the order of compulsory

retirement.

Learned Counsel would further submit that certain facts as stated in the counter affidavit would be very relevant to appreciate the conduct of

the petitioner and as to how the respondent Bank has viewed the same in a very balanced manner. It is submitted that the petitioner joined duty as

clerk in the Anna Salai Branch on 03.08.1970 and was promoted as an officer on 20.04.1974 and posted to Karamadai branch as Assistant

Manager. The petitioner after accepting the promotion submitted a representation for reversion as clerk on the ground that his wife is employed in

a non transferable post at Chennai. The management considered his request favourably, accepted his reversion and retained him at Anna Salai

Branch. By order dated 16.10.1975, he was promoted as officer cadre on merit basis along with other eligible candidates and the petitioner was

posted at Kancheepuram. Even before joining at Kancheepuram, the petitioner represented for posting at Chennai on the same grounds of his wife

non transferable employment. The petitioner joined Kancheepuram on 14.11.1975. The management sympathetically considered his request and

the petitioner was posted to Adayar Branch and he joined on 22.09.1976 and on his further representation he was transferred to Chetpet Branch.

After the normal tenure of 3 = years, he was transferred to Arcot Branch as an accountant by order dated 04.08.1980. His request for retention at

Chennai was declined on 25.10.1980 and the petitioner joined Arcot Branch on 27.10.1980 and it is stated that from the subsequent date

onwards, he did not attend office and his attendance at Arcot Branch was irregular. On a request made the petitioner he was transferred to Vellore

Branch by order dated 04.08.1982, but did not choose to report at Vellore, which was the place of his choice, and represented for transfer to

Singaperumalkoil which came to be declined on 19.10.1982. The petitioner remained absent continuously up to 29.11.1982 and attended office at

Vellore Branch 30.11.1982. Thereafter the petitioner was absent from 01.12.1982 to 28.04.1983 and joined on 29.04.1983 and the Branch

relieved him on the said date to attend interview at Villupuram for Scale II promotion and thereafter the petitioner did not attend duty and joined

Vellore Branch on 14.11.1983 and was absented from next day onwards between the period from 18.10.1983 to 03.03.1984. The petitioner was

again on unauthorised absence. Therefore, it is submitted that for the period from 01.09.1982 to 29.05.1984 the petitioner reported for duty only

for about four days and inspite of all these, his request was considered and he was transferred to Teynampet Branch on 26.05.1984 and joined

duty on 06.06.1984. After four years, the petitioner was posted to Regional Office Mumbai on 13.05.1988 and on his representation he was again

retained in Teynampet Branch from 06.06.1984 to 27.06.1995, this transfer to Mumbai was cancelled by the petitioner by citing that he fell under

the category spouse joining spouse. The transfer to rural branch service made on 30.05.1990 was also cancelled on 04.08.1990, based on the

petitioner''s representation and his transfer to Vadamathimangalam Branch on 10.05.1984 was also represented and his request for retention at

Teynampet was declined and he was posted to Regional Office at Kancheepuram on 14.09.1994 cancelling the earlier order and was relieved on

27.06.1995 and he did not join duty at Kancheepuram and continued to remain absent. Therefore, learned Counsel would submit that this is a

clear case of unauthorised absence from duty and accordingly charge memo dated 18.02.1997 was issued which resulted in a punishment of

reduction of pay. It is further submitted that when the petitioner''s transfer to Regional Office Mumbai was cancelled vide letter dated 30.05.1988

he was informed that after being retained at Madras for period of three years he would be transferred outside his native state. According to the

transfer policy, the officers would be required to serve at a Branch/Office normally for a period upto 3 to 4 years and at a Centre for a maximum

period of 8 years. On every promotion officers are liable for transfer. The petitioner had completed 10 years in the same branch and he was

relieved in absentia on 27.06.1995 that the instructions to report at Kancheepuram. The letter dated 05.07.1995 cannot be an interim leave letter

since the letter did not contain the basic requirements of regular leave letter such as request for leave, reason for leave, period of leave and nature

of leave etc.,

Reliance was placed on Regulation 13, proviso 2 of the conduct regulations which states that no officer shall originally absent himself in case of

sickness or accident without submitting a proper medical certificate provided that in case of temporary in dispossession or sickness of casual

nature the production of medical certificate made at the discretion of the competent authority be dispensed with. It is stated that the petitioner in his

letter dated 05.07.1995 requested for grant of one year time until a new branch posting was made and he did not submit any regular leave letter

with medical certificate and therefore, the letter dated 05.07.1995 cannot be termed as a leave letter. It is further stated that the petitioner did not

join Kancheepuram till 14.05.1996 and in the meanwhile, the promotion policy formulated during April 1996, under normal channel, the bank gave

promotion to 315 officers and the petitioner was one among them and he was allotted to Vellore zone. It is further submitted that the refusal to

accept the offer of promotion would not entitle the petitioner to continue at the same Centre/branch indefinitely and petitioner is one among the 315

officers who were given promotion and it cannot be stated that the petitioner was not aware of the same, since the circular dated 11.04.1996 was

displayed in the staff notice board and communicated to all of them. Therefore, it is submitted that the grant of promotion has nothing to do with the

allegations in the charge memo dated 18.12.1997 and it is erroneous to contend that the allegations in the charge are no longer valid. It is further

stated that the intimation regarding the petitioner''s promotion was sent by the respondent Bank only for the first time on 11.03.1998 is factually

incorrect since he refused the offer of promotion vide letter dated 23.10.1996. It is stated that by making such contradictions, the petitioner has

committed perjury.

It is further stated that the petitioner had been in the habit of adopting one tactic or other to retain himself at Chennai and the petitioner was

holding a responsible job which is transferable and transfer is an incident of service and the petitioner cannot be allowed any special privilege.

Therefore, learned Counsel would submit that the impugned orders of punishment do not call for any interference.

Learned Counsel for the respondents relied on the following judgments on the scope of interference in such matters more particularly, cases

relating to unauthorised absence.

State of Punjab Vs. Ram Pal, State of Punjab Vs. Dr. P.L. Singla, General Manager, Appellate Authority, Bank of India and Another Vs. Mohd.

Nizamuddin, , Indian Bank Vs. S. Madhavan, and Shree Sajjan Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, M.P., Bhopal and Another, .

I have carefully considered the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.

The question to be decided in the present Writ Petitions are as to whether the punishments imposed on the petitioner is justified in the facts and

circumstances of the case. The charge against the petitioner is one of unauthorised absence. According to the petitioner, the charge itself is on a

wrong premise, since it is not a case of unauthorised absent as the petitioner had submitted a leave letter dated 05.07.1998. Therefore, it is

necessary to examine the aspect as to whether the letter dated 05.07.1995, given by the petitioner to the General Manager(Admin) of the

respondent bank is a leave letter. At this juncture, it is relevant to note that in the counter affidavit filed by the bank, it has been stated that in terms

of Proviso 1 to Regulation 13 of the Indian Bank Officer Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1976 (hereinafter referred to ""as the Regulations""), no

officer employee shall absent himself from duty or be late in attending office or leave station without having first obtained the permission of the

Competent Authority provided that in case of unavoidable where availing of prior permission is not possible or is difficult such permission may be

obtained later subject to the satisfaction of the Competent Authority that such permission could not have been obtained. In terms of Proviso 2 of

Regulation 13, no officer employee shall ordinarily absent himself in case of sickness or accident without submitting a proper medical certificate

provided that in case of temporary indisposition or sickness of a casual nature, the production of medical certificate may, at the absolute discretion

of the Competent Authority be dispensed with.

Further, it has been stated in the counter affidavit that the required details, which are necessarily to be mentioned in a leave letter does not find

place in the letter dated 05.07.1995 and no medical certificate has been enclosed and therefore, it cannot be treated as a leave letter in accordance

with the service regulations. Bearing these regulations in mind, if the contents of the letter dated 05.07.1995 is perused, it is seen that in the subject

column, it has been stated by the petitioner ""transfer to RMO, Kancheepuram, my petition dated 12.05.1995 addressed to Chairman and

Managing Director- request for time until reposting to facilitate treatment"". With this subject, the petitioner has stated that he had requested for

change of posting to nearby branch on medical grounds and he has been relieved from Teynampet Branch on 27.06.1995 and that he is yet to

receive a reply for his earlier petition to Chairman, which according to him was under active consideration and that as per the Physician''s

prescription and endoscopy report, he is under treatment for Deodinal Ulcer & Severe Esophigitis.

Therefore, it was stated by the petitioner that he will not be able to report to Kancheepuram R.O., since he is already under treatment and

requested time of one year or until a new branch posting is made. Ultimately, it was stated that his request for reposting to a nearby branch to be

considered and he shall submit leave letter for a period along with fitness certificate at the time of joining duty. Therefore, the letter dated

05.07.1995 is in fact a representation to the General Manager to grant him one year time or until a fresh posting is given on the ground that he is

under medical treatment. The petitioner has not made any unconditional request for leave and the petitioner stated he will submit his leave letter for

the period along with fitness certificate at the time of joining. The Regulation referred supra postulates prior permission from the competent

authority and only under unavoidable circumstances such permission may be obtained later and this is also subject to the satisfaction of the

competent authority that such prior permission could not have been obtained. In the instant case the facts reveal that no such prior permission was

obtained, not it is the case of the petitioner that the situation was such that he could not obtain prior permission. Therefore, in my view this letter

dated 05.07.1995 cannot be treated to be a leave letter as contemplated under the service regulations.

That apart in terms of the Regulations, grant of leave is not automatic and in terms of the service regulation, it is at the absolute discretion of the

competent authority. In fact Proviso 2 to Regulation 13, states that no officer shall ordinarily absent himself in the case of sickness without

submitting a proper medical certificate. Only in the case of temporary indisposition such medical certificate, at the discretion of the competent

authority to be dispensed with. Therefore as rightly pointed out by the respondents, the letter dated 05.07.1995 cannot be construed as a leave

letter. Further it cannot also be stated to be an interim leave letter, since there is no power under regulation for submitting an interim leave letter.

Having held the letter dated 05.07.1995 is not a leave letter in terms of the Regulation, the next question to be considered is as to whether the

petitioner''s failure to report duty at Kancheepuram would amount to unauthorised absent. The petitioner placed heavy reliance on the

recommendations made by the Branch Manager, Teynampet Branch and the Chief Manager by their letters dated 02.02.1995 and 18.06.1996

respectively. This according to the petitioner ought to have been considered in the proper prospective coupled with the fact that the petitioner had

been constantly meeting the superiors, the petitioner cannot be stated to be unauthorised absent, the letters dated 02.02.1995 & 18.06.1996 are in

the nature of recommendations, which cannot be ignored. The Branch Manager/Chief Manager while forwarding the representations of the

petitioner to be retained in Teynampet Branch have strongly recommended the petitioner''s case. Therefore at best these letters could be taken to

be only as recommendatory and not binding on the competent authority. It is to be noted that the Chief Manager himself by letter dated

02.04.1996 had sought the advise of Personnel Department of the bank by stating that the petitioner though had been relived from Teynampet

branch on 28.06.1995, had not joined at Kancheepuram regional office, and by stating so requested instructions in the matter. Therefore, these

officers, who have recommended the petitioner''s case are bound by the directives to be issued by the competent authority. Therefore, these

recommendatory letters cannot advance the case of the petitioner to justify the stand taken by the petitioner for not reporting for duty at

Kancheepuram. Hence, the respondent was fully justified in holding the absence was unauthorised. It was contended by the learned Counsel

appearing for the petitioner that in the interregnum the petitioner was promoted as Scale II officer and by virtue of such promotion and posting to

Vadamathimangalam, Thiruvannamalai District, it is deemed that the charge of unauthorised absence would automatically ceased to exists. In this

context, it is relevant to note that the order of promotion granted to the petitioner was based on a promotional policy formulated during April 1996

in which the respondent bank gave promotion to 350 officers under normal channel as per seniority in each cadre and for those who did not get

their promotion on previous two occasions. Therefore, at any strech of imagination, this promotion accorded to the petitioner in the normal channel

cannot have any effect on the charge framed against the petitioner and cannot be stated to automatically put an end the allegation of unauthorised

absence and dehorse the promotion, the respondent bank were fully justified in proceeding independently on the charge.

The next contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner was that the petitioner declined the promotion granted to him by letters

dated 15.06.1996 and 23.10.1996 and that the petitioner cannot be compelled to accept the promotion or in other words an order of promotion

cannot be thrust upon the petitioner. The next question would be whether the petitioner could as a matter of right decline promotion and if that be

the case whether that could be done in the manner, which the petitioner had adopted by addressing the letters dated 15.06.1996 and 23.10.1996.

The answer to the question could be got from the petitioner''s earlier conduct. The petitioner while working as clerk in the Anna Salai branch was

promoted to the officer cadre on 20.04.1974 and posted at Karamadai Branch as Assistant Manager. The petitioner after accepting the promotion

made a representation for cancellation of such promotion and reversion as clerk stating that his wife was employed in a non transferable job.

Therefore, it is clear that the petitioner is aware of the procedure to be followed for restoring him to the original cadre and merely because the

petitioner had written letters declining his promotion cannot be stated to have the effect of automatically cancelling the promotion granted.

In any event, cancellation of a promotion cannot be an unilateral act and mere letter from the petitioner without acceptance of the same by the

competent authority cannot be clothe the petitioner the right of refuse the promotion, such order of acceptance of the request declining promotion

has to be necessarily made in accordance with the relevant Regulations and it has to be accepted by the competent authority and appropriate

orders of reversion has to be passed. Therefore, it is beyond once comprehension that the petitioner, who was aware of the procedural law chose

not to report for duty in the promoted station and remained without reporting for duty by addressing a letter renouncing the promotion granted.

Therefore, the letters dated 15.06.1996 and 23.10.1996 cannot have the effect of automatically cancelling the promotion granted to the petitioner.

In such situation, the respondent bank cannot be faulted for not permitting the petitioner to join duty at Kancheepuram, since during the relevant

point of time the order of promotion granted to the petitioner was in effect and in force. Therefore, if the interpretation as given by the petitioner

stating that by a letter simplicitor would suffice to undo an order of promotion it would result in chaos in the administrative set up of any

organisation.

In such circumstances, it could be safely concluded that the petitioner is bound by the order of promotion unless and until his request for

declining such promotion is accepted by the competent authority in the manner known to law and until it is so done, the petitioner ought to have

reported in the promoted station. The petitioner cannot contend that the renunciation of the promotion takes effect immediately after his letters

dated 15.06.1996 & 23.10.1996 and that in the absence of reposting order in the lower cadre, he need not report for duty. Such interpretation, in

my view is wholly untenable.

Further contention that the enquiry officer himself observed that the petitioner had intention to join duty, cannot advance the case of the

petitioner, when the fact remains that the petitioner did not join duty. Several records have been placed before this Court to substantiate that the

petitioner has been a very faithful and helpful employee to the bank and that the bank had benefited out of his untiring efforts. These factors had

probably weighed mind of the competent authority to impose the first penalty of stoppage of increment, though classified as a major penalty under

the regulation, could be interpreted to be ""minor"" considering the fact that the petitioner resisted an order of transfer to Kancheepuram from

Teynampet Branch, after he was relived on 27.06.1995. Even for the subsequent period also the petitioner did not report for duty, which resulted

in the issuance of the second charge memo. In the second charge memo dated 01.02.2000, the petitioner was charged, stating that despite the

issuance of the charge memo for unauthorised absence from 28.06.1995(first charge memo), he had failed for report duty and had been

unauthorisedly absent, even after 19.12.1997 without submitting leave application or obtaining leave sanction from competent authority. The

petitioner was also charged of having disobeyed lawful orders of higher authorities in not reporting for duty at Vadamathimangalam branch

(promoted station). An explanation was submitted by the petitioner and after conducting an enquiry, it resulted in the order of punishment of

compulsory retirement. It is to be noted that the order of transfer from Teynampet to Kancheepuram was made on 14.09.1994. The petitioner

was granted to sufficient time to report at Kancheepuram and was relived from Teynampet on 27.06.1995, after a period of nearly 9 months, his

absence for a period of 9 months after receipt of the order of transfer cannot be ignored. Subsequently, the petitioner was promoted and posted at

Vadamathimangalam, which is a rural station and as per the transfer policy of the respondent bank on every promotion, officers are liable to

transfer and they are also required to serve in rural area. The petitioner cannot unilaterally decline his promotion and claim that he should be

permitted to join at Kancheepuram from which post he has already been promoted by then.

Thus considering all circumstances of this case and the manner and which the disciplinary proceedings have been conducted, it cannot be

stated that the punishment of compulsory retirement is excessive. Further the conduct of the petitioner in resisting earlier orders of

transfer/promotion, which have been stated in the earlier paragraphs of this order could also be taken note of as regards the earlier conduct of the

petitioner is not complying with orders of the higher authorities. It is further to be noted that the petitioner has not alleged any procedural infirmity

or violation of any statutory rule or regulation in the manner of conduct of the disciplinary proceedings. Therefore, after taking note of all the above

mentioned facts, the final question to be decided is as to whether the order of punishment should be interfered with. Though several Judgments

have been placed by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the respondent, on the scope of interference of this Court, in the

matters of punishment, it would be relevant to take into consideration of the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab Vs. Dr.

P.L. Singla, , the said case was also a case of unauthorised absence of a Doctor, who was absence for nearly five years. After considering the

facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon''ble Supreme Court held as follows:

Unauthorised absence (or overstaying leave), is an act of indiscipline. Whenever there is an unauthorised absence by an employee, two

courses are open to the employer. The first is to condone the unauthorised absence by accepting the explanation and sanctioning leave for the

period of the unauthorised absence in which event the misconduct stood condoned. The second is to treat the unauthorised absence as a

misconduct, hold an enquiry and impose a punishment for the misconduct.

An employee who remains unauthorisedly absent for some period (or who overstays the period of leave), on reporting back to duty, may

apply for condonation of the absence by offering an explanation for such unauthorised absence and seek grant of leave for that period. If the

employer is satisfied that there was sufficient cause or justification for the unauthorised absence (or the overstay after expiry of leave), the employer

may condone the act of indiscipline and sanction leave post facto. If leave is so sanctioned and the unauthorised absence is condoned, it will not be

open to the employer to thereafter initiate disciplinary proceedings in regard to the said misconduct unless it had, while sanctioning leave, reserved

the right to take disciplinary action in regard to the act of indiscipline.

We may note here that a request for condoning the absence may be favourably considered where the unauthorised absence is of a few days or

a few months and the reason for absence is stated to be the sudden, serious illness or unexpected bereavement in the family. But long unauthorised

absences are not usually condoned. In fact in security services where discipline is of utmost importance, even a few days of overstay is viewed

very seriously. Be that as it may.

Where the employee who is unauthorised absent does not report back to duty and offer any satisfactory explanation, or where the explanation

offered by the employee is not satisfactory, the employer will take recourse to disciplinary action in regard to the unauthorised absence. Such

disciplinary proceedings may lead to imposition of punishment ranging from a major penalty like dismissal or removal from service to a minor

penalty like withholding of increments without cumulative effect. The extent of penalty will depend upon the nature of service, the position held by

the employee, the period of absence and the cause/explanation for the absence.

The Hon''ble Supreme Court in several decisions has laid down the law that if the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority shock the

conscious of the High Court, it would appropriately mould the relief either directing the disciplinary authority to reconsider or to shorten the

litigation, it may itself in exceptional rare cases impose appropriate punishment for cogent reasons in support there of. (see: B.C. Chaturvedi Vs.

Union of India and others, ).

In my view the considering nature of the charge against the petitioner his explanation and reasons assigned in the orders passed by the

disciplinary authority and the appellate authority cannot be held to be disproportionate the punishment of compulsory retirement imposed on the

petitioner. In fact the following Judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court fully supports such conclusion, General Manager, Appellate Authority,

Bank of India and Another Vs. Mohd. Nizamuddin, , held as follows:

9.. The High Court''s view that the punishment of dismissal from service on the proved misconduct is disproportionate to the gravity of the

misconduct, in our view, is fallacious. There can never be a more grave misconduct than a bank officer holding a responsible post absenting himself

unauthorisedly for a period of three years detrimental to the public interest. That apart, despite the receipt of several notices issued to him he

remained adamant and shied away from participating in the inquiry proceedings. This conduct is also unbecoming of a responsible officer holding

the position as Middle Management Officer, Grade II.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Raj Bahadur Sharma (Dead) Thr.

L.RS. Vs. Union of India and Others, stated that the petitioner cannot be said to be at fault for not joining in the transferred place. The facts in the

said case was that the employee concerned was not given the reliving order and necessary passes to enable him to join the transferred place and in

such circumstances, the Hon''ble Supreme Court granted relief of 50% of the salary and allowances for the said period. The case of hand is

factually different and the petitioner was issued an order reliving him from service and despite the same, the petitioner did not comply such order

and had moved various authorities for revoking such order. What is to be noted is that in the interregnum, the petitioner did not obey the orders of

transfer and continued to remain absent. The other explanation, which was given by the petitioner is that he had relinquished his promotion by his

letter dated 15.06.1996 & 23.10.1996. The Hon''ble Supreme Court, while considering the effect of voluntary retirement from bank service, in the

case of Mohd Nizamuddin as referred supra held that voluntary retirement from the bank service is not automatic and it is precede by an exit

interview, where several factors are taken into consideration and the exit interview is not an empty formality.

Therefore mere renunciation of promotion at the instance of the petitioner cannot be stated to have effect of the cancelling the promotion and

such renunciation is required to be accepted by the competent authority. Thus the decision relied by the learned Counsel appearing for the

petitioner in the case of Raj Bahadur Sharma, referred supra does not advance the case of the petitioner. Similarly, the decision relied on by the

learned Counsel in Hotel Ambassador Pallava (represented by its Executive Assistant Manager, Sri Vasant Sampth), Chennai v. Presiding Officer,

Second Additional Labour Court, Chennai and Anr. 2005 (4) LLN 654, which relates to a case of abandoning the job cannot be made applicable

to the facts and circumstances of the present case.

For the reasons stated above, I find that there are no merits in the writ petitions and the orders of punishment imposed on the petitioner does

not call for any interference. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.