Chandra Mohan Das vs Canara Bank And Others .... Opposite ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 4744 Ori

Orissa High Court

Chandra Mohan Das vs Canara Bank And Others .... Opposite ... on 7 March, 2025

Author: A.K. Mohapatra

Bench: A.K. Mohapatra

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                   W.P.(C) No.1765 of 2025

       An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the
Constitution of India.

 Chandra Mohan Das                      ....              Petitioner

                                     Mr. Sidheswar Mallik, Advocate

                                 -versus-

 Canara Bank and others                 ....      Opposite Parties

                                  Mr. S. Pradhan, Advocate for OP-4



                            CORAM:

             JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA
_____________________________________________________
  Date of hearing : 03.02.2025 | Date of Judgment: 07.03.2025
 ______________________________________________________

A.K. Mohapatra, J. :

1. The above named Petitioner, who is an officer of Canara

Bank and who has already rendered 35 years of uninterrupted

service at the Bank, has approached this Court by filing the

present writ application with a prayer to quash the rejection order

dated 31.05.2024 and 02.12.2024 under Annexures-5 & 6

respectively. Further, he has also prayed for a direction to the

Opposite Parties to accept the voluntary retirement of the

Petitioner from service and for a further direction for payment of

arrear salaries from January, 2024 till the date of acceptance of

his voluntary retirement and for payment of other post-retirement

benefits including the pensionary benefits, as is due and

admissible, within a stipulated period of time along with interests

on delayed payment of such service benefits. The factual

background leading to filing of the present writ application, in a

narrow compass is that the Petitioner entered into the service of

Opposite Party-Bank on 18.11.1989. As such, he has rendered 35

completed years of service. Before the events central to the issue

in the present writ petition transpired, the Petitioner was last

posted as Senior Manager, Canara Bank, Baripada Branch. A

perusal of the background facts of the writ petition further reveals

that while working as a Senior Manager, in January 2023, the

Petitioner suffered an acute brain stroke and he was hospitalized

thereafter. Such hospitalization includes the treatment of the

Petitioner as an ICU patient from 09.01.2023 to 20.03.2023.

Thereafter, the Petitioner was shifted to SUM Ultimate Medicare

Hospital in Bhubaneswar where he underwent treatment as a

neuro patient in the Department of Neurosurgery. Finally, the

Petitioner was discharged from SUM Ultimate Medicare Hospital,

Bhubaneswar on 28.03.2023 with a medical advice to undergo

rehabilitation and physiotherapy care for two to three months.

Accordingly, the Petitioner was admitted to a physiotherapy

hospital in Bhubaneswar and remained under treatment till

02.04.2024. Due to financial constraint and on the request of the

family members, the Petitioner was discharged from the hospital

and was undergoing physiotherapy treatment at his residence.

Even now the Petitioner has not fully recovered and spends a

considerable amount of his time bedridden.

2. The current medical condition of the Petitioner is such

that he is unable to even sign his own name and he is also unable

to perform his daily activities without any assistance from his

family members. In fact, the Petitioner was unable to put his

signature on the Vakalatnama, as a result of which the writ

application has been filed with the thumb impression of the

Petitioner, duly attested by his wife, Smt. Haridra Das.

3. Since the health condition of the Petitioner did not permit

him to discharge his official duties that he was performing earlier,

the Petitioner decided to take voluntary retirement from service.

On enquiry, the Petitioner came to know that the Bank has

circulated a guideline for submission of VR/Resignation

Application by an Officer/Employee of the Bank. As per the said

guidelines, an Officer shall not leave or discontinue his/her

service in the Bank without giving a notice in writing of his

intention to leave or discontinue his service or resign. The period

of notice as prescribed in the guidelines is three months and the

same shall be submitted to the competent authority with liberty to

the competent authority to reduce the notice period or remit the

requirement of notice. Clause-3 of the aforesaid guideline

provides that on receipt of an application, the Bank authorities

shall ascertain from the officer/employee the reason for

submission of VR/Resignation Application and invariably counsel

the officer before accepting the application.

4. Since the Petitioner remained on leave for a long period

on medical grounds by submitting leave application, he has

exhausted his casual leave/sick leave as is permissible under the

Rules. Since the Petitioner has not joined in duty from January

2023, he has not been paid his salary from January 2024. Due to

non-payment of his salary since January 2024, in addition to the

expenses incurred for his treatment, the Petitioner has completely

eroded all his savings and as such the Petitioner's entire family

has been going through a period of financial crisis. Owing to the

aforesaid financial condition, as well as the health condition of

the Petitioner, the family members of the Petitioner decided that

the Petitioner should take voluntary retirement from service as he

is unable to attend office work. Accordingly, with the help of the

family members the Petitioner submitted his VR Application on

17.11.2023, to the Regional Manager Canara Bank, Bhadrak.

5. As has been stated hereinabove, since the Petitioner who

is suffering from paralysis, due to the brain stroke he suffered, the

petitioner was unable to put his signature on the application and

such application was submitted under the signature of his wife

and children. The competent authority, after keeping the

application pending for a long period of near about six months,

finally rejected the application of the Petitioner seeking voluntary

retirement from service, without assigning any reason

whatsoever, on 31.05.2024. The Petitioner was only intimated

that in the event he seeks voluntary retirement then he has to

submit his application afresh by giving requisite notice of three

months. On 02.12.2024, the very same authority once again

issued another rejection order mentioning the very same ground

as the one that had been stated in the earlier rejection order dated

31.05.2024. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid two orders dated

31.05.2024 and 02.12.2024, under Annexures-5 & 6 respectively,

the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ

application.

6. Mr. Sidheswar Mallik, learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the Petitioner, at the outset pleaded that the health

condition of the Petitioner is very critical and he is confined to his

bed. As such, the Petitioner is unable to put his signature on any

application or document for that matter. To further substantiate

his contention with regard to the deteriorated health condition of

the present Petitioner, the learned counsel referred to the doctor's

certificate dated 12.12.2024, wherein the health condition of the

Petitioner has been stated. Such certificate reveals that the

Petitioner is unable to work or perform his daily activities and

that the patient is in a complete bed-ridden condition and he is

unable to even make or put down a signature on his own. Learned

counsel for the Petitioner further contended that from the date the

Petitioner suffered the brain stroke, even though the Petitioner has

survived, his health condition has not improved in any substantial

measure and his whole body continues to remain paralysed. Thus,

the wife of the Petitioner has submitted the application seeking

voluntary retirement. On such ground, learned counsel for the

Petitioner submitted that since the wife of the Petitioner is taking

his care and she is legally entitled to represent the Petitioner and

act on his behalf, the Bank Authority should not have insisted

upon appointment of any co-guardian. He further argued that the

wife being a Class-1 legal heir, can act on behalf of her husband

and execute necessary papers representing the Husband. He

further contended that the health condition of the Petitioner is

such that a huge amount of money is being spent for the treatment

of the Petitioner and to keep him alive. Moreover, since the

Petitioner has already availed all the leave available to his credit,

the Petitioner is not being paid his salary from January 2024.

Moreover, all his savings having been spent on his treatment, the

whole family of the Petitioner has now fallen into extreme

economic adversity and they are unable to meet the treatment

expenses of the Petitioner any further. Such condition compelled

the Petitioner's family members to submit the VR Application so

that the Petitioner can avail his retirement benefits as well as the

pensionary benefits as is due and admissible to him. He further

contended that the inaction on the part of the Opposite Parties in

not accepting the VR Application and in not sanctioning and

disbursing the financial benefits as is due and admissible to the

Petitioner, has led to the Petitioner and his family members being

seriously prejudiced and there exists a risk to the life of the

Petitioner as the family members are not in a position to continue

with the treatment of the petitioner. Under such compelling

circumstances, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing

the present writ petition.

7. Mr. S. Pradhan, learned counsel appearing for the

Opposite Party No.4, on the other hand, expresses the sympathy

of the Bank towards the Petitioner's plight. However, he further

contended that the Opposite Parties have not committed any

illegality in passing the orders under Annexure-5 & 6. Further,

referring to the guidelines of the Bank for submission of

VR/Resignation Application by an Officer/Employee, Mr.

Pradhan submitted that common conditions are applicable to both

voluntary retirement and resignation of employees. The first

condition as per the guidelines under Annexure-3 is that the

officer/employee desirous of seeking voluntary retirement should

give advance notice of not less than three months to the

competent authority. He further contended that once such

application is submitted by the officer/employee, the concerned

authorities are to ascertain from the officer/employee the reason

for submission of voluntary retirement application and invariably

counsel the officer/employee before accepting/forwarding the

application. Further, drawing attention of this Court to clause-7

(III) of the guidelines under Annexure-3, learned counsel

appearing for Opposite Party-Bank submitted that the applications

which are either incorrect or incomplete are liable to be rejected

by the Bank.

8. Mr. Pradhan, learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.4

further contended that the application seeking VR dated

17.11.2023, under Annexure-4, has been submitted by the wife

and children of the officer/employee. Therefore, the same is not in

terms of the guidelines under Annexure-3 since as per the

applicable guidelines it is the office/employee who has to submit

an application seeking for either voluntary retirement or

resignation. As such, Mr. Pradhan further contended that the

application submitted on behalf of the Petitioner is incomplete

and therefore the Opposite Party-Bank has not committed any

illegality in rejecting such application vide the letter dated

31.05.2024 under Annexure-5 and letter dated 02.12.2024 under

Annexure-6 to the writ application. In such view of the matter,

Mr. Pradhan further contended that the writ application is devoid

of merit and accordingly the same should be dismissed.

9. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the

respective parties, on a careful analysis of the arguments

advanced before this Court, further on a careful scrutiny of the

pleadings in the writ application and the documents annexed

thereto, this Court observes that there is no dispute with regard to

the factual aspect of the present writ petition. Moreover, on a

close scrutiny of the rejection orders under Annexure-5 & 6 it is

evident that the application of the Petitioner seeking voluntary

retirement has been declined by the competent authority of the

Opposite Party-Bank. The Petitioner has been advised to make a

fresh application seeking voluntary retirement, in the event the

Petitioner is so advised, after giving requisite notice of a period of

three months. Thus, it is clear from the rejection orders under

Annexure-5 & 6 that the competent authority has not assigned any

reason whatsoever while rejecting the VR Application of the

Petitioner which was submitted through his wife and children. In

such view of the matter, this Court has no hesitation in coming to

a conclusion that the impugned rejection orders under Annexure-5

& 6 are bad in law on the sole ground that the same do not

contain any valid reason whatsoever for rejection of the

Voluntary Retirement application of the Petitioner. Moreover, this

Court, on a careful analysis of the factual background of the

present case and keeping in view the certificate of the Doctor

annexed to the writ application as Annexure-7, is of the view that

undoubtedly the Petitioner had initially suffered a brain stroke

and thereafter he has been confined to bed due to the paralysis

caused by such brain stroke. It is also evident that the Petitioner

was in the rehab and physiotherapy centre from 28.03.2023 to

02.04.2024. Such medical report further clearly indicates that the

patient is unable to work and perform his day-to-day activities of

daily living, although, the response of the Petitioner to commands

are intact and well-recognized. Such medical certificate further

reveals that the Petitioner is completely bed-ridden and that he is

unable to affix his signature on his own. Since the medical

certificate under Annexure-7 has not been disputed by the Bank,

this court has no reason to disbelieve such certificate.

Accordingly, this Court holds that the Petitioner had suffered a

brain stroke for which he was hospitalised, thereafter, the

Petitioner has been suffering from paralysis and he is completely

bed-ridden and as such he is unable to sign with his own effort.

10. So far as the guidelines under Annexure-3 are concerned,

it is found that they have been issued by Canara Bank for

submission of VR/Resignation Application by an

officer/employee. The above factual aspect has not been disputed

by the counsel appearing for the Bank. The said guidelines also

refer to Regulation-20(2) of CBOSR, 1979, which provides that

an officer shall not leave or discontinue his/her service in the

Bank without first giving a notice in writing of his/her intention to

leave or discontinue his/her service or resign. The notice period

that is required has been stipulated to be a period of three months

and it is to be submitted to the competent authority as prescribed

in the aforesaid Regulation. Provided further, that the competent

authority is also empowered to reduce the notice period of three

months or remit the requirement of notice. Further, taking note of

various circulars laying down the guidelines, the circular dated

24.04.2023 under Annexure-3 has been issued by the Bank.

11. On a reading of the aforesaid circular under Annexure-3,

it is observed that an officer/employee can submit

VR/Resignation Application after giving three months' advance

notice. However, such notice period is liable to be either reduced

or remitted by the competent authority. Learned counsel for the

Bank does not have any objection with regard to the other

conditions as the application submitted on behalf of the Petitioner

is compliant with the other conditions. The only objection that has

been taken in the rejection letters as well as by the counsel for the

Opposite Party No.4 is that the application of voluntary retirement

is incomplete since it has not been signed by the Petitioner

himself. With regard to the notice period, this Court observes that

such notice period can very well be waived by the competent

authority. Therefore, the same is not mandatory in nature. In

appropriate cases the competent authority, while exercising its

power under Regulation-20(2), can very well remit the notice

period. Therefore, the only issue that remains to be adjudicated at

this stage is as to whether the application submitted by the wife

and children of the Petitioner is an invalid application. On a

careful consideration of the factual background of the present

case, further taking note of the medical certificate, this court is of

the considered view that the Petitioner is completely bed-ridden

and he is unable to even affix his own signature. Thus, the

Petitioner could not have submitted the application seeking

voluntary retirement. Moreover, it is also a fact that the wife and

children of the Petitioner require funds to continue the treatment

of the Petitioner as all their funds have already been exhausted in

the prolonged process of the Petitioner's treatment. Keeping in

view the aforesaid facts and the greater interest of justice, this

Court has no hesitation in coming to a conclusion that the

impugned rejection letters under Annexure-5 & 6 are

unsustainable in law. Accordingly, the rejection orders dated

31.05.2024 under Annexure-5 and dated 02.12.2024 under

Annexure-6 are hereby quashed. Further, while allowing the

present writ application, this Court directs the competent

authority of the Bank to remit the requirement of notice period as

has been provided in the circular dated 24.04.2023 under

Annexure-3. Further, the application under Annexure-4 submitted

by the wife and children, who are the class-I legal heirs of the

Petitioner, be accepted as a valid application in the facts and

circumstances of the present case and the same be processed in

terms of the circular under Annexure-3 within a period of two

weeks from the date of communication of a certified copy of

today's order by the present Petitioner. It is further directed that

upon acceptance of the application for Voluntary Retirement in

terms of Annexure-3 to writ application, the Opposite Party shall

do well to calculate all outstanding dues, including the arrears, the

pension, gratuity etc. as is due and admissible to the Petitioner,

and disburse the same in favour of the Petitioner, subject to the

other legal heirs giving their consent for such disbursement in

favour of the Petitioner in the shape of an affidavit, within a

period of two weeks from the date of taking such decision. It is

further directed that the release of the financial benefits in favour

of the Petitioner shall also be subject to the Petitioner furnishing

an indemnity bond in favour of the Opposite Party-Bank to such

extent as would be indicated by the Bank authorities after due

calculation of the financial benefits as is due and admissible to the

Petitioner.

12. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ

petition stands allowed.

(Aditya Kumar Mohapatra) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 7th March, 2025/ S.K. Rout, Jr. Stenographer

Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 07-Mar-2025 14:03:02