Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1666 (PAT)

Amrita Bhushan v. Chairman, Canara Bank

2012-12-11

S.N.HUSSAIN

body2012
ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents-Canara Bank and its authorities. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs:- (i) For issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of letter no.2854 dated 03.11.2012 whereby the application for resignation from service made by the petitioner on 14.08.2012 has been rejected. (ii) For necessary direction to the respondent authorities to accept the resignation of the petitioner from the post of Officer, Canara Bank in view of provision contained in Clause-20 (2) of the Canara Bank (Officers’) Service Regulation, 1979, which stipulates that an officer shall not leave or discontinue his services in the Bank without first giving a notice in writing of his intention to leave or discontinue his service or resign. The period of notice required shall be three months and shall be submitted to the competent authority as prescribed in these regulations. (iii) For necessary direction to the respondent authorities not to force the petitioner to join her duty during the pendency of this writ application. (iv) For necessary direction to the respondent authorities to release the terminal benefits of the petitioner, such as, provident fund, pension and gratuity in view of the provision contained in Clause-45 & 46 of Canara Bank (Officers’) Service Regulation, 1979. (v) For any other direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that she joined in Canara Bank as a Clerk in January, 2002 and in the year 2008 she was promoted to the post of Officer Scale-I where she performed her work to the best of her ability, but time and again she was subjected to sexual harassment by her superiors since the very beginning of her career and lastly the petitioner had to submit a complaint of sexual harassment against her superiors on 14.08.2012 (Annexure-1) making specific averments of overt act of her named superiors. Finally due to inhuman and undignified behaviour meted out to her, she submitted her resignation from service on 14.08.2012 in prescribed form. 4. Finally due to inhuman and undignified behaviour meted out to her, she submitted her resignation from service on 14.08.2012 in prescribed form. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that her aforesaid resignation letter was rejected by the authorities of the Canara Bank vide letter dated 03.11.2012 informing that upon investigation it was found that the allegations made by the petitioner in her resignation letter were false and baseless and her resignation letter was not voluntary and hence the competent authority had not accepted the grounds of resignation and had rejected her application for resignation. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner avers that an Officer of the Bank has a right to resign as per Clause 20 (2) of the Canara Bank (Officers’) Service Regulations, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Regulations’ for the sake of brevity) which reads as follows:- “An officer shall not leave or discontinue his services in the Bank without first giving a notice in writing of his intention to leave or discontinue his service or resign. The period of notice required shall be 3 months and shall be submitted to the Competent Authority as prescribed in these Regulations.” 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon a decision of the Apex Court in case of Punjab National Bank vs. P.K. Mittal reported in AIR 1989 Supreme Court 1083 in paragraph-5 of which it was held as follows:- “5. We have given careful thought to this contention of the learned counsel and we are of the opinion that the High Court was right in the conclusion it reached. Clause (2) of regulation 20 makes it incumbent on an officer of the bank before resigning, to serve a notice in writing of such proposed resignation and the clause also makes it clear that the resignation will not be effective otherwise than on the expiry of three months from the service of such notice. There are two ways of interpreting this clause. One is that the resignation of an employee from service being a voluntary act on the part of an employee, he is entitled to choose the date with effect from which his resignation would be effective and give a notice to the employer accordingly. The only restriction is that the proposed date should not be less than three months from the date on which the notice is given of the proposed resignation. The only restriction is that the proposed date should not be less than three months from the date on which the notice is given of the proposed resignation. On this interpretation, the letter dated 21st January, 1986 sent by the employee fully complied with the terms of this clause. Though the letter was written in January, 1986 the employee gave more than three clear months' notice and stated that he wished to resign with effect from 30th of June, 1986 and so the resignation would have become effective only on that date. The other interpretation is that, when an employee gives a notice of resignation, it becomes effective on the expiry of three months from the date thereof On this interpretation, the respondent's resignation would have taken effect on or about 21-4-1986 even though he had mentioned a later date. In either view of the matter, the respondent's resignation did not become effective till 21-4-1986 or 30-6-1986. It would have normally automatically taken effect on either of those dates as there is no provision for any acceptance or rejection of the resignation by the employer, as is to be found in other rules, such as the Government Services Conduct Rules.” 7. Hence on the aforesaid grounds learned counsel for the petitioner argues that in the aforesaid facts and circumstances the respondents were duty bound to accept the resignation letter of the petitioner with effect from three months after the date of filing of the resignation petition. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that since there were serious and unfounded allegations levelled against the authorities of the Bank in the resignation letter of the petitioner and enquiry was made by the authorities concerned after which report dated 27.08.2012 (Annexure-3) was submitted concluding that the complaint of sexual harassment against seven officials of the Bank filed by the petitioner is neither substantiated by her nor supported by circumstantial evidence and hence allegations are baseless, frivolous and malicious. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents states that against the said report the petitioner filed an appeal (Annexure-4) before the Executive Director of the Bank at Bangalore and the said appeal is still pending before the authority concerned. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents states that against the said report the petitioner filed an appeal (Annexure-4) before the Executive Director of the Bank at Bangalore and the said appeal is still pending before the authority concerned. Hence he submits that on the basis of the aforesaid report application for registration of petitioner was rejected by the respondents on 03.11.2012 (Annexure-6 series) holding that upon investigation it was found that allegations were false and baseless and in that view of the matter the competent authority did not accept the grounds of resignation and rejected petitioner’s application for rejection. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents claims that since the letter of resignation was not simplicitor rather it was on the basis of allegations which were found to be false, there was no occasion for acceptance of petitioner’s application for resignation. However, if resignation simplicitor had been filed by the petitioner it would have been definitely accepted by the authorities concerned in view of the aforesaid provisions of the Regulations and the decision of the Apex Court in case of Punjab National Bank (supra). 11. Considering the averments made by learned counsel for the parties it is quite apparent that the provision of the Regulations relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner speaks about a resignation simplicitor and not about any conditional resignation. Furthermore, the decision of Apex Court in case of Punjab National Bank (supra) also does not speak about any conditional resignation rather it is only with respect to the date on which resignation simplicitor can be made effective. 12. In the said circumstances, it is quite apparent that if a resignation raising serious allegation is made against respondent themselves, only an independent enquiry can show whether allegations levelled by the petitioner against the officials of the Bank are justified or not and there is ample chance that in-house enquiry may not be very fair in this regard, specially when according to the petitioner the Bank has not complied the requirements as envisaged in the decision of Apex Court in case of Vishaka and others vs. State of Rajasthan reported in (1997) 6 Supreme Court Cases 241. 13. Thus the enquiry held by the Bank will not cut much ice as it is not an independent enquiry held on the allegations of the petitioner. 13. Thus the enquiry held by the Bank will not cut much ice as it is not an independent enquiry held on the allegations of the petitioner. However, the apprehension of the petitioner is that if she does not mention any reason for her resignation in the resignation letter she would lose cause of action to raise her grievances before any appropriate forum. This apprehension in my view is unfounded because any person holding Scale-1 post in a nationalized bank in normal circumstance would not agree to resign unless there is some reason behind it and hence even if no reason was given in the letter of resignation that would not preclude any independent and appropriate forum to take up the case of the petitioner and proceed in accordance with law. This is quite apparent from the report of Mahila Helpline dated 10.10.2012 (Annexure-5) in Registration Case No.2860 of 2012 in which the allegations of the petitioner after enquiry were not found to be false and she was advised to take further action after taking legal advice. 14. In the said circumstances, although the letter of resignation of the petitioner dated 14.08.2012 speaks of certain allegations, the authorities of the Bank shall consider the said application as resignation simplicitor and pass an order in accordance with the provisions of the Regulations and the decision of Apex Court in case of Punjab National Bank (supra). 15. However, it may be mentioned that the allegations levelled by the petitioner in her resignation letter would stand deleted which would have no bearing on any proceeding initiated by the petitioner, which would be proceeded in accordance with the pleadings and evidences produced by the parties. 16. The terminal benefits of the petitioner must be released by the respondents within three months from today. With the aforesaid observations/directions this writ petition is disposed of.