ANANDA SEN,J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.
(2.) The petitioner was appointed in the Central Bank of India on 01.09.1980 (herein referred to as "the Bank"). He met with an accident on 18.03.2004. When he was hospitalized in Ranchi, at that point of time, he was holding the charge of Central Bank of India Regional Office, Ranchi with the additional charge of Central Bank of India, Branch Office, Jamshedpur. On the request of the petitioner, the bank allowed the petitioner to continue the work at Regional Office, Ranchi for 45 days. The said order dated 17.05.2004 has been brought on record at Annexure-1 to this writ application. The petitioner, in- spite of best treatment, did not recover fully and had to undergo two surgeries within a span of three months. The bank, to meet the expenses, sanctioned Rs. 30,000/- as an advance for surgery. This document of sanction is brought on record as Annexure-3, to this writ application. The doctor allowed the petitioner to join his duty from 13.10.2004, but, with restricted use of his hand for six months and he was also advised for regular physiotherapy. The petitioner filed a representation making request to the Bank to allow him to work at Ranchi for atlest another six months. The Bank Authorities without considering the case of the petitioner relieved him from Ranchi and directed him to join Central Bank of India, Branch Office, Jamshedpur vide letter dated 18.10.2004. The petitioner claims that though he was not in a position to join Central Bank of India, Jamshedpur, yet as he had no intention to disobey the order of Superior Authority, he immediately gave his joining and against all odds he started discharging his duties there. It has been stated that his health deteriorate and from 28.10.2004 he was not in position to attend his duty. He informed his Senior Officials, thereafter he went on leave. The petitioner again on 16.11.2004 requested the authorities to allow him to go on leave with a loss of pay for better treatment to abroad, but the same was not accepted and instead of considering the case of the petitioner sympathetically, vide memo no. JSR/PRS/04- 05/366 dated 22.12.2004, the petitioner was informed that in terms of letter dated 22.12.2004 issued by the Zonal Office of the Bank Patna, the petitioner has been transferred to the Zonal Office, Lucknow. Vide the same letter dated 22.12.2004 the petitioner stood relieved to give his joining at Zonal Office of the Bank at Lucknow. In the meantime, the petitioner again got hospitalized and remained in hospital from 27.12.2004 to 2.1.2005. The petitioner, thereafter on 14.01.2005 made a request to consider his case sympathetically and also made a request to cancel his transfer order, but, his leave application was returned on the ground that he already stood transfered to the Zonal Office, Lucknow vide order dated 22.12.2004.
(3.) The petitioner was physically and mentally distressed. He sent a letter offering his resignation and made a request to waive the notice period, taking into consideration his ailment. The said offer of resignation has been brought on record by the petitioner at Annexure-10 of this writ application. The bank received the said letter and vide letter dated 19.03.2005 intimated the petitioner that he cannot be deemed to have been retired on the expiry of three months notice period unless and until a specific communication in this regard is received by the petitioner from the management. No communication on the offer of resignation was received by the petitioner at any point of time. Thereafter, vide order dated 08.10.2005 a memorandum of charge was issued to the petitioner stating therein that the petitioner has committed misconduct as he remained unauthorisedly absent. A departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. The article of charge suggests that because the petitioner remained unauthorisedly absent since 29.10.2004, after being relieved from Branch Office, Jamshedpur from 22.12.2004, and as the petitioner has not joined the Zonal Office, at Lucknow, he has committed misconduct. It was also mentioned that prior to the issuance of the charge-sheet, the petitioner was also absent and suffered loss of pay for 25 days in August, 2004, 30 days in September, 2004 and 19 days in October, 2004.;