SADIQ SHAFI QURESHI Vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA
LAWS(BOM)-2022-3-157
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (FROM: NAGPUR)
Decided on March 25,2022

Sadiq Shafi Qureshi Appellant
VERSUS
UNION BANK OF INDIA Respondents




JUDGEMENT

A.S.CHANDURKAR,J. - (1.)Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard the petitioner in person and the learned counsel for the respondents.
(2.)The petitioner, who was serving as 'Assistant Manager ' with the erstwhile Corporation Bank which has now merged with Union Bank of India (for short, the Bank), has challenged the communication dtd. 15/5/2020 issued to him by the Bank by virtue of which the petitioner has been informed that his services were relieved on 14/9/2017 under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme and in accordance with the Corporation Bank (Employees ') Pension Regulations, 1995 (for short, the Pension Regulations,1995). Consequently, the petitioner prays that his applications dtd. 13/9/2017 and 12/3/2020 be accepted and he be permitted to withdraw his notice of resignation/voluntary retirement. The petitioner further prays for his reinstatement in service with continuity and full back wages.
(3.)The petitioner who appeared in person submitted that while he was in service with the Corporation Bank he had taken various steps to intervene in contempt proceedings before the Hon 'ble Supreme Court for recovery of dues against Mr. V.Mallya. While serving as 'Assistant Manager ' at Pune Branch of the Corporation Bank he submitted an undated letter of resignation on 6/5/2017. However, he was informed by the Bank that his undated letter of resignation could not be accepted considering the form in which it was sent. The petitioner was informed that if he desired to resign from the service, he was free to submit his letter of resignation through proper channel. Thereafter on 22/5/2017 the petitioner again sought to resign from service. On 6/9/2017 the petitioner was informed by his employer that after considering his letter of resignation dtd. 22/5/2017 as well as subsequent letter dtd. 4/8/2017, the notice period of three months would expire on 21/8/2017. Since the petitioner had availed leave for the period of twenty four days from the date of submission of his request for voluntary resignation, his relieving date would be 14/9/2017. The request made by the petitioner for treating such relieving date as 4/11/2017 was not accepted by the Bank. Thereafter on 13/9/2017 the petitioner issued another communication requesting the Bank to consider his request of withdrawing the resignation/voluntary retirement application and not to relieve him from service. This letter was forwarded to the superior Authority of the Bank and on 20/9/2017 the petitioner was informed that an amount of Rs.1,73,516.44 was recoverable from him. In the meanwhile the petitioner was relieved from duties on 14/9/2017. Thereafter on 12/3/2020 the petitioner made yet another request to the Bank to permit him to withdraw the letter of resignation/voluntary retirement and reinstate him in service. The petitioner was informed by the communication dtd. 15/5/2020 that his request for withdrawing the voluntary retirement application could not be considered. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that the petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking reinstatement with continuity in service.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.