- (1.) The petitioner has sought a mandate from this Court to the respondents to allow him to join duties on the post of officer J.M.G.S.-I with effect from January 1, 1990.
(2.) Facts first :- The petitioner after graduation in Arts was recruited as Cashier in the State Bank of India on December 14, 1967; he passed C.A.I.I.B. Part I in the year 1972; he was promoted as officer J.M.G.S.I. on October 1, 1977; during the entire service career of 22 years, he earned good and excellent annual confidential reports. In September, 1989, he received intimation from the United States of America that his cousin was ill; he met respondent No. 4 on September 11, 1989 in the presence of Mr. A.P. Bahl, an officer of J.M.G.S.-I; he was assured by respondent No. 4 that he will be granted leave. The petitioner handed over his leave application to Shri A.P. Bahl on September 12/13, 1989. He applied for leave from September 18, 1989 to October 7, 1989. The leave application was handed over by Mr. A.P. Bahl to respondent No. 4 on September 18, 1989. The petitioner's visa for going abroad was going to expire on September 21, 1989 and he left Chandigarh on September 16, 1989; he presumed that his leave had been sanctioned. His leave was to expire on October 7, 1989; he sent a telegram to respondent No. 4 on October 9, 1989 for extension of leave for one week, i.e., until October 16, 1989. The same was received by respondent No. 4 on October 17, 1989 and was acknowledged by him vide his letter No. GAD/89/467 dated October 17, 1989. The petitioner was preparing to leave for India when he got an attack of Pneumonia; he was advised by Doctor Harjit Singh at Baltimore to take complete rest. The petitioner submitted application along with medical certificate for leave until December, 1989 to respondent No. 4. Respondent No. 4 addressed a letter to the petitioner in November, 1989 at Chandigarh address intimating that his leave application submitted through Mr. A.P. Bahl has not been accepted. It was further mentioned in the letter that the leave was not sanctioned since the petitioner left India without permission. In the same month, another letter dated October 17, 1989 was sent at the petitioner's Chandigarh address intimating that extension of leave sought for through telegram was declined. The petitioner was also called upon to submit explanation for leaving the country without prior permission and sanction. In November, 1989 he received letter dated October 30, 1989 from the respondent directing him to report for duty within three days of the receipt of the letter and submit satisfactory explanation for his absence, failing which, his appointment would be forfeited in terms of rule 92 of State Bank of India (Supervising Staff) Service Rules. A detailed reply was submitted by the petitioner. The same was rejected by respondent No. 2 on the ground that it was false. The intimation regarding the non-acceptance of the explanation was sent by respondent No. 4 vide letter dated December 1, 1989. It was again reiterated by respondent No. 4 that the petitioner should comply with the directions contained in letters dated October 5, 1989, October 17, 1989, and October 30, 1989 and also report for duty immediately. On December 4, 1989 through a registered letter the petitioner was again required to report for duty. The petitioner reached Chandigarh on January 11, 1990 and reported for duty on the next date. On his request, General Manager (Operations) directed the Personnel Manager, respondent No. 3 to allow the petitioner to join in some other department at Local Head Office. The Personnel Manager instead of complying with the directions of the General Manager (Operations) sent the case to respondent No. 4 for comments. Since respondent No. 4 was biased, he wrote to respondent No. 3 that the petitioner was rightly not allowed to join duty and he did not offer any comment. Finally the petitioner made a written request to the Chief General Manager to allow him to join duty at the Local Head Office but was not allowed.
(3.) Written statement has been filed purporting to be on behalf of the respondents but is signed by respondent No. 2 alone. Objection to the maintainability of the writ petition has been taken on the ground that the State Bank of India (Supervising Staff) Service Rules, 1975 (for short 'the Rules') as modified by the State Bank of India Officers (Determination of Terms and Conditions of Service) Order, 1979 (for short 'DTCS Order') were not statutory. It was admitted that the petitioner had excellent service record of 22 years to his credit. It ws, however, pleaded that the application was received by Mr. B.K. Sharma, Officer Incharge, State Government Link Office, on September 19, 1989 through Shri Bahl at 9.45 a.m. and the following note was appended : "Received on September 19, 1989 through Shri Bahl at 9.45 a.m. Permission for going abroad not obtained in advance." It was further pleaded that the petitioner violated Rules 83 and 85 of the Rules; that he was advised by letter dated October 17, 1989 that leave applied for by him was declined and that he was absenting in an unauthorised manner; that on October 30, 1989 he was again advised to report for duty and submit explanation for his absence within three days of the receipt of the letter; that the medical certificate dated October 12, 1989 was received by the respondents in the first week of November, 1989; that on November 8, 1989 undated letter was received from the petitioner and thereafter on November 24, 1989 another medical certificate was received; that in response to the bank's notice dated October 30, 1989, the petitioner submitted his explanation dated November 15, 1989 which was received on November 28, 1989. It was wrongly stated therein that respondent No. 4 verbally told the petitioner that his leave would be sanctioned; that the petitioner was absenting in an unauthorised manner from September, 1989 despite bank's notice dated December 4, 1989. A note dated December 8, 1989, was put by respondent No. 4 to the General Manager (Operations) for advising the Office Manager not to release the salary of the petitioner for his unauthorised absence. In this note a request was made to the Personnel Manager to provide suitable replacement of the petitioner. The note was approved by the General Manager (Operations) on December 9, 1989; that respondent No. 2 issued a final notice dated December 19, 1989 and invited his attention to the earlier notices dated October 17, 1989, October 30, 1989 and December 4, 1989. The petitioner failed to report for duty and the following order was passed by respondent No. 2 :- "This is to put on record your voluntary abandonment of/resignation from service with effect from September 18, 1989.";