JUDGEMENT : R.A. Mehta, J. 1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 24-1-1989 Annexure-A to the petition. That order declares that the petitioner has been absenting from duty unauthorisedly since July 20, 1988 and a letter dated 19-12-1988 was sent to the petitioner at the last known address by registered post calling upon the petitioner to report for duty within 30 days of that notice. As the petitioner failed to report for duty, it was Seemed that the petitioner had voluntarily retired from service. 2. On 19-6-1990, notice was issued to the respondents and the following order was passed. "Notice to the respondents returnable on 16th July, 1990. Notice is issued in view of the averments made in the petition that the petitioner had already informed the respondent-Bank that at the material time, he was residing at Block No. 14/317, Government 'K' Colony, Shahibaug, Ahmedabad. It is brought to the notice of the petitioner that in can this statement is not found to be correct, petition will be dismissed on this ground alone." 3. The petitioner has not been able to point out any material to show that the Bank was informed that the petitioner was residing at Block No. 14/317, Govertmient 'K' Colony, Shahibaug, Ahmedabad. On the contrary annexure to the affidavit-in-reply dated 2-6-1989 shows that this address was furnished for the first time on 2-6-1989. The letter is written by the petitioner in his own handwriting. However, that handwriting is not very legible. Even the petitioner himself could not read it, but the fact of having furnished the address of 'K' Colony, Shahibaug, Ahmedabad and the date thereof are clan. The petitioner does not explain as to how and what was the reason or occasion for him to furnish this address in June 1989 if it was already furnished, by him. 4. Even apart from this, Para XVI of the Bipartite Settlement dated 17-9-1984 provides for deemed voluntary retirement from the Bank's service in case of an employee who absents himself for 30 days or more consecutive days without leave and 30 days notice has been given to the petitioner on his last known address calling upon him to report for duty within 30 days. At such last known address, the notice was sent and the petitioner failed to report for duty and, therefore, the impugned order of deemed voluntary retirement came to be passed. At such last known address, the notice was sent and the petitioner failed to report for duty and, therefore, the impugned order of deemed voluntary retirement came to be passed. This order is unassailable. 5. The petitioner himself has stated in para 7 of the petition that in connection with some fraud case, he was wanted for investigation and the petitioner went into biding from police and he was absconding. In view of these facts, pars XVI of the Bipartite Settle merit is clearly attracted and the petitioner is deemed to have retired from service in accordance with the settlement operative between the parties. 6. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this petition is summarily dismissed. Notice discharged. Petition dismissed.