Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1513 (AP)

State Bank of India v. N. Swapna

2023-12-06

G.NARENDAR, NYAPATHY VIJAY

body2023
JUDGMENT G.NARENDAR, J. - Heard Smt.V.Uma Devi, learned Standing Counsel for S.B.I., for the appellants and Sri C.Prakash Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The appellants are the State Bank of India and have preferred this intra-Court Appeal being aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, passed in W.P.No.31730 of 2010, dtd. 16/8/2016, whereby the learned Single Judge was pleased to allow the Writ Petition and further, was pleased to direct the appellants to take immediate steps for compliance of the request of the writ petitioner for absorption in accordance with the Scheme, notified on 20/7/2010. 3. It is the case of the appellants that the representation for absorption was made after the completion of three month's notice period, but the respondent admits the receipt of her notice after relinquishing the office on 3/4/2010 and that she worked upto 30/6/2010 and thereafter did not report to duty from 1/7/2010; and that the Scheme for absorption was notified vide Circular, dtd. 20/7/2010. The respondent, only thereafter, on 29/8/2010 made her representation to consider her case also. 4. It is contended by the learned Standing Counsel for the appellants that the learned Single Judge failed to see that there was discontinuation of the service and that the resignation had already been accepted. It is also contended that the Scheme does not apply to such of those O.M.Rs. viz., Officers Marketing and Recovery, who have resigned and are not on duty. Learned Standing Counsel for the appellants would also contend that the period of absence has also not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent would reiterate the findings of the learned Single Judge and would contend that the order of the learned Single Judge is a wellreasoned order and does not call for interference at the hands of this Court. He places reliance on para.12 of the judgment of the High Court for the State of Telangana rendered in the case of Ch.Venkata Chary v. Metropolitan Sessions Judge [ = Order, dt.22/6/2022, in W.P.No.46097 of 2018, of the High Court for the State of Telangana], which reads as follows: "12. This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by the parties, is of the considered view that the impugned rejection orders are without application of mind and no reasons are assigned. This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by the parties, is of the considered view that the impugned rejection orders are without application of mind and no reasons are assigned. Admittedly, in the instant case, the acceptance of resignation proceedings dt.10/5/2018 were not communicated to the petitioner. A bold statement of the respondents that they have sent it by registered post and the petitioner has not claimed the said registered letter and hence, it is deemed to have accepted cannot be accepted by this Court as per Rule 42 of the Classification, Control and Appeal Rules. Rule 42 of the Rules states as follows: "Rule 42. Service of orders, notices etc. :- Every order, notice and other process made or issued under these rules shall- (i) if he is on duty, be served on the Government servant by delivering or tendering it in person; (ii) if he is on leave or under suspension or otherwise absent be communicated to him by registered post to the address given by him, if any, or of his usual place of residence; (iii) if it cannot be so served or communicated, be published in Telangana gazette.- 6. Having heard the learned counsels on both sides, we have given our anxious consideration to the various submissions and the following order is passed. 7. We have perused the pleadings. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that a resignation was tendered on 3/4/2010 and it is also not in dispute that the respondent was employed as an O.M.R. There is no dispute that the resignation was tendered on 3/4/2010 and in accordance with the Rules, more particularly, according to Rule 20.5 of the State Bank of India Officers-Marketing and Recovery (Rural) Service and Conduct Rules (for short "the Rules"), which reads as under: "any officer, who desires to relieve from the services of the Bank, is required to put the Bank on notice and that the same is consented by the Bank in writing." 8. We have perused Rule 20.4 and Rule 20.5, which have been relied upon by the learned Single Judge in para.7 of the impugned order. Rule 20.4 deals with the power vested with the employee to terminate the contract of service from his side by giving a notice of three months. 9. Rule 20.5 makes an interested reading. We have perused Rule 20.4 and Rule 20.5, which have been relied upon by the learned Single Judge in para.7 of the impugned order. Rule 20.4 deals with the power vested with the employee to terminate the contract of service from his side by giving a notice of three months. 9. Rule 20.5 makes an interested reading. It mandates that no officer shall be deemed to have left the services of the Bank unless the Bank communicates its approval for termination of contract of service in writing, as envisaged under Rule 20.4. Admittedly, no material is placed either before the learned Single Judge or before this Court to demonstrate such approval of termination in writing. The Clause mandates the approval to be in writing and as observed by the learned Single Judge, this Court finds that there is no such approval of the termination in writing. That apart, it is seen that the proposed scheme of absorption, dtd. 28/7/2018, clearly provides for absorption of such of those O.M.Rs. also, who have resigned and not yet relieved. 10. In that view of the matter, the controversy regarding the period, during which the respondent did not report for duty is of no consequence and of no avail to the appellants, in the scheme of appointment. Even assuming that the respondent has acted upon the resignation/termination of service letter, the fact remains that the Bank has failed to comply with the mandate of Rule 20.5. In the absence of such confirmation by the Bank and that too in writing, it cannot be gainfully argued that the termination of the services of the respondent has become complete and contentions to the contrary, would be of no avail to the appellants. 11. That apart, it is pertinent to note the relevant part of Clause (xii) of the Scheme, which reads as under: "xii. .... Similarly, the officers who have submitted resignation, but were not yet released, will have the option to withdraw resignation and will be offered permanent appointment under the scheme." 12. A bare reading of the above, leaves no doubt in the mind of this Court that the same is squarely applicable to the case of the respondent. The admitted fact is that the respondent was on the rolls of the Bank as an O.M.R. and submitted her resignation on 3/4/2010 and did not report to duty after 30/6/2010. A bare reading of the above, leaves no doubt in the mind of this Court that the same is squarely applicable to the case of the respondent. The admitted fact is that the respondent was on the rolls of the Bank as an O.M.R. and submitted her resignation on 3/4/2010 and did not report to duty after 30/6/2010. But, the fact remains that the termination was not completed by the appellants/Bank in terms of Rule 20.5. That being so, it has to be construed that the respondent was not released from the services of the Bank. In that view of the matter, we do not find any error in the order of the learned Single Judge and the Writ Appeal is wholly devoid of merits. 13. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.