Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Smt.R.Sukanya Widow W/O Late ... vs The State Bank Of India, on 6 February, 2024
*HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
+WRIT PETITION No.30586 OF 2013
%06.02.2024
#Between:
Smt.R.Sukanya (Widow), W/o.late
M.Simhagirippan, aged about 43 years,
C/o.D.No.19/12-519, Bairagippatteda,
Tirupati, Chittoor District.
...Petitioner
and
The State Bank of India, Rep.by it's
Chief General Manager, Local Head
Office, Bank Street, Koti, Hyderabad
and three others.
...Respondents
!Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri N.Ranga Reddy
^Counsel for the Respondent/s : B.S.Prasad
<Gist:
>Head Note:
? Cases referred:
1. (2008) 10 BOM CK 0044
2. W.P.(C) No.31225 of 2010 (C) decided on 30.10.2014
3. (2005) 9 SCC page 278
4. (1986) 4 SCC page 337
5. (2010) 09 AP CK 0049
6. (1990) 2 L.L.N.1019
This Court made the following:
-2-
WP. No.30586 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
*HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
+WRIT PETITION No.30586 OF 2013
#Between:
Smt.R.Sukanya (Widow), W/o.late
M.Simhagirippan, aged about 43 years,
C/o.D.No.19/12-519, Bairagippatteda,
Tirupati, Chittoor District.
...Petitioner
and
The State Bank of India, Rep.by it's
Chief General Manager, Local Head
Office, Bank Street, Koti, Hyderabad
and three others.
...Respondents
DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED: 06.02.2024
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may
be allowed to see the Judgments? Yes/No
2. Whether the copies of order may be marked
to Law Reporters/Journals? Yes/No
3. Whether Your Lordships wish to see the fair
copy of the order?
Yes/No
_______________________
JUSTICE HARINATH.N
-3-
WP. No.30586 of 2013
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH. N
WRIT PETITION No.30586 of 2013
ORDER:
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the letter, dated
08.02.2013, of the General Manager (Net Work-III),
Appointing Authority, State Bank of India, and the
subsequent order dated 01.04.2013, whereby the
petitioner was imposed a major penalty of voluntary
vacation from service.
2. The petitioner was employed in the respondents' Bank.
She joined the service on 01.02.1990 and was promoted
from time to time. The petitioner, while working at the
Srikalahasti Branch as a Manager, transferred to the
Penuganchiprolu Branch and thereafter transferred to
the Nunna Branch. The petitioner, on account of cervical
spondylosis, applied for leave from 30.07.2012 to
04.08.2012 enclosing the medical certificate and the
same was also communicated to the Assistant General
Manager. The petitioner applied for further leave as
advised by the doctor and the same was informed to the
concerned officers of the respondents' bank. The
petitioner received a letter dated 08.02.2013, whereby the
respondents' bank communicated that considering the
petitioner's absence from duty as unauthorized, the same
was viewed seriously and the respondents' bank, relying
on the sub-Clause (3) of Rule 40 of the State Bank of
India Officers' Service Rules, imposed the punishment of
voluntary vacation from service. The petitioner preferred
an appeal against the said order. The appellate authority,
by an order dated 01.04.2013, dismissed the said appeal.
Hence the writ petition.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned standing counsel for the respondents' bank.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is a widow and has school going children. On
account of family conditions and also on account of
health conditions, the petitioner could not join the
services of the respondents' bank at the Nunna
Branch. However, the leave letter addressed by the
petitioner was received by the respondents' bank.
5. The respondents have filed a counter and submitted that
the respondent bank initiated departmental action on
account of the unauthorized absence and passed the
order of voluntary vacation from service. The
respondents' bank submits that the letters were
addressed on various occasions by registered post,
requiring the petitioner to attend before the senior
medical officer and also to report to duty. However, the
petitioner did not comply with the requirement as called
upon.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no
enquiry was conducted before the major punishment of
voluntary vacation from service was imposed on the
petitioner. The learned counsel relied on the judgment of
the Bombay High Court in Smita N. Trivednee v. State
of Bank of India and others1 and on the judgment of the
Kerala High Court in C.Karuknakaran v. State Bank of
India and 2 others2. In similar facts and circumstances,
in the above referred cases, it was held that discretion
that is vested upon an authority under a Rule has to be
(2008) 10 BOM CK 0044
W.P. (C) No.31225 of 2010 (C) decided on 30.10.2014
exercised in a manner that conforms to the provisions of
the Rule, and he cannot take into account irrelevant
considerations while exercising his discretion.
7. As seen from the pleadings and also as seen from the
counter, it is evident that the respondents' bank, without
conducting any enquiry, has issued the major
punishment to the petitioner. It is an undisputed fact
that the petitioner has applied for leave, and the
respondents have not communicated any letter in which
the leave sought by the petitioner was rejected or
otherwise.
8. In identical facts and circumstances, in the case of the
University of Bihar and Others V/s Kamal Deo Thakur
and others 3 the Apex Court had held that the removal
from service without enquiry is bad and the employee is
entitled for compensation and in the case of O.P.
Bhandari v. ITDC and others4 the Apex Court had held
that in case of illegal termination, the employee shall be
entitled to compensation.
(2005)9 SCC page 278
(1986) 4 SCC page 337
9. In the case of Prameela and others v. The A.P.S.R.T.C.
and others 5 , the learned Single Judge of the erstwhile
High Court of Andhra Pradesh had held that when once
the leave of absence from duty is sanctioned to an
employee, the consequential absence from duty by such
an employee becomes a legitimate one and cannot be
considered as misconduct on his part.
10. In the case of Kulwant Singh Gill v. State of
Punjab 6 the Apex Court had held that without
conducting proper enquiry, imposing the major penalty
is illegal.
11. In the light of the aforesaid parameters laid down in the
judgments of the Apex Court and the other High Courts,
it appears in the instant case that the action of the
respondents' bank, without conducting any enquiry,
imposed the major punishment of voluntary vacation
from service and communicated the same under the
letter dated 08.02.2013 is wholly arbitrary and irrational
and consequently, the appellate order dated 01.04.2013
(2010) 09 AP CK 0049
(1990) 2 L.L.N. 1019
is bad in law and as such, this Court finds force in the
submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and
finds fault with the manner in which the orders under
challenge are passed.
12. Hence, the imposition of punishment under a letter
dated 08.02.2013 by the respondents' bank and the
order of the appellate authority dated 01.04.2013 are
liable to be set aside. The respondents' bank is hereby
directed to reinstate the petitioner into service with all
benefits, including seniority and monetary benefits. The
respondents' bank shall comply with the order within
four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order.
13. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed without
costs.
14. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand
closed.
________________________
JUSTICE HARINATH. N
Dt.06.02.2024
BV
