R.H.ZAIDI, J. - (1.)By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner, who was holding the post of General Manager of Bank of India, Lucknow, prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated April 12, 1999, whereby petitioner was deputed as a General Manager of Gramin Bank, Farrukhabad, the order dated May 29, 1989 whereby the petitioner was advised to report to the Regional Manager, Farrukhabad, charge-sheet dated December 20, 1989, notice dated February 19, 1990 and the order dated June 17, 1991, passed by respondent No. 2 removing the petitioner from the aforesaid post. Prayers for a mandamus commanding the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 not to continue the disciplinary proceedings, to make payment of the arrears of salary from March, 1989, to take a decision on the resignation letter dated May 31, 1989 and to compensate the petitioner adequately have also been made.
(2.)The relevant facts of the case giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioner joined the bank as a probationer in pursuance of appointment letter dated April 1, 1975. According to the terms and conditions of the appointment letter, the petitioner could be posted in India or outside India, where the bank has or might thereafter open offices or branches. After some time, due to his personal ability and sincerity to the job, petitioner was appointed as Manager of southern branch and was permitted to open a new branch at Lucknow. Petitioner out of his sincerity achieved the business target for the whole year 1978. He was, therefore, posted as Manager of Mahanagar branch at Lucknow. Petitioner got the Mahanagar branch upgraded as the largest branch in Uttar Pradesh. Petitioner had unblemished record of service and was always serious and sincere to his job. He was, therefore, posted as Development Manager (Marketing and Public Relations) and also performed his duties to the best of his efficiency at Kumbh Mela in the year 1988. Unfortunately, petitioner was manhandled by the union leaders and his henchmen on February 2, 1989. In the said incident, he also suffered bodily injuries. About the said incident, petitioner made a complaint to the respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 advised the petitioner to submit his leave application. On the advice received from respondent No. 2, petitioner informed him that he will not come to the office to avoid any untoward further incident. Inspite of written complaint made by the petitioner, no action was taken by the respondent No. 2 against the union leaders responsible for the aforesaid incident. Consequently, the petitioner had to send a representation to the respondent No. 2 informing him that petitioner was not attending the office as per advice given by respondent No. 2 and requested him to provide security and working conditions and to take action against the undisciplined elements. Petitioner also made a demand for payment of salary for the month of March, 1989, from respondent No. 2. It was on April 8, 1989, that the petitioner received a letter dated March 17, 1989 from respondent No, 2 refusing to pay the salary to the petitioner and asked him to report for duties and to facilitate the investigation. On receipt of the aforesaid letter, petitioner replied to respondent No. 2 that he was not attending the office on this advice. He was, however, willing to attend the office if normal conditions are restored. It was also intimated by him that he was performing his job without entering the premises of the office. It was on April 16, 1989 that the respondent No. 2 without seeking consent of the petitioner in writing or otherwise decided to depute the petitioner as General Manager, Farrukhabad Gramin Bank. He also passed an order to that effect, which was never served upon the petitioner. After passing the aforesaid order, respondent No. 2 relieved the petitioner from the Zonal Office and asked the petitioner to report to the Chairman, Farrukhabad Gramin Bank, on May 29, 1989. The said letter was delivered to the petitioner in June, 1989. On receipt of the aforesaid letter, the petitioner in continuation to his earlier representation dated March 15, 1989 to the respondent No. 1 through respondent No. 2 sent a detailed representation against the insult and humiliation he faces at the hands of respondent No. 2.
(3.)In the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner had no option but to serve notice to resign from the bank, requesting for being informed of the date on which the petitioner would be relieved from the services of the bank. It was on June 4, 1989, that the petitioner sent a memorandum to respondent No. 2 categorically stating that inspite of repeated assertions made by the petitioner that he was not coming to office to discharge his duties with specific consent of respondent No. 2 and as such petitioner could not be treated as unauthorisedly absent more so when respondent No. 2 had not denied the said fact. The petitioner further requested to respondent No. 2 to withdraw the order dated April 12, 1996, as the same was wholly illegal and without jurisdiction and contrary to the Rules. Simultaneously, the petitioner also requested for payment of salary, which was withheld from March, 1989, clarifying that even if the higher authorities to whom the petitioner had represented but not agreed with the interpretation of the consent of respondent No. 2 regarding absence of petitioner since February 3, 1989 could not be adjusted towards his accumulated privileged leave (earned leave) sufficient balance of which was due to the petitioner's credit. It was on June 15, 1989 that petitioner met respondent No. 3 and submitted his letter to respondent No. 3 where the petitioner had again requested for release of his withheld salary as the petitioner needed money for his treatment. The petitioner also explained that he could not be sent to Farrukhabad Gramin Bank on deputation without his consent. In the meanwhile, it was on December 20, 1989 that major penalty proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and a charge-sheet was issued against him, which was served upon him on December 20, 1989. It was on January 24, 1990 that decision was taken by the authorities to take disciplinary proceedings, which were never taken. On receipt of the charge-sheet, the petitioner prayed for extension of time to file his replies the relevant papers were not supplied to him and legal advice had to be sought. It was on February 19, 1990 that a reply of the charge-sheet was submitted by the petitioner, which was served upon the respondent No. 2 on February 20, 1990. Thereafter, petitioner was asked to appear before the inquiry committee, but the disciplinary proceedings were never initiated.