JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the letter, dtd. 8/2/2013, of the General Manager (Net Work-III), Appointing Authority, State Bank of India, and the subsequent order dtd. 1/4/2013, 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 1/2/1990 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 30/7/2012 to 4/8/2012 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 dtd. 8/2/2013, 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 dtd. 1/4/2013, 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 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 others, (2008) 10 BOM CK 0044 and on the judgment of the Kerala High Court in C.Karuknakaran v. State Bank of India and 2 others, W.P. (C) No.31225 of 2010 (C) decided on 30/10/2014. 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 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, (2005)9 SCC page 278 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 others, (1986) 4 SCC page 337 the Apex Court had held that in case of illegal termination, the employee shall be entitled to compensation. 9. In the case of Prameela and others v. The A.P.S.R.T.C. and others, (2010) 09 AP CK 0049 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. 10. In the case of Kulwant Singh Gill v. State of Punjab, (1990) 2 L.L.N. 1019 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 dtd. 8/2/2013 is wholly arbitrary and irrational and consequently, the appellate order dtd. 1/4/2013 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 dtd. 8/2/2013 by the respondents ' bank and the order of the appellate authority dtd. 1/4/2013 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.