Ashok Kumar Chhabra v. Indian Bank & Ors

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J

JULY 28, 2014 pp

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 28th July, 2014 + W.P.(C) No.5197/2001 ASHOK KUMAR CHHABRA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Jagat Arora & Mr. Rajat Arora, Advs. Versus INDIAN BANK & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Vaibhav Kalra & Mr. Deepak Yadav, Advs. CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW 1. This petition invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India impugns the order dated 9th March, 2000 of the Disciplinary Authority of the respondent Bank imposing upon the petitioner major penalty of dismissal from service in terms of Regulation 4(j) of Indian Bank Officer Employees' (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976. The petitioner also seeks the relief of reinstatement with all consequential benefits. 2. Notice of the petition and the application for interim relief were issued though no interim relief granted. Rule was issued in the writ petition on 26th July, 2002 and the application for interim relief dismissed. The petitioner was permitted to file additional affidavit. Mediation was attempted but without any success. Written synopsis of submissions filed by the counsels are on record. The counsels have also been heard. 3. The arguments of the counsel for the petitioner are:- (i) that the petitioner, in the year 1972 selected and appointed as a Probationary Officer in the respondent Bank, served diligently and was promoted from time to time and was last working in the Senior Manager Grade Post (Scale-V) and had unblemished career; (ii) that the petitioner, on account of the illness of the brother of his wife staying in USA, had to suddenly leave for USA on 29th December, 1998 and owing to the urgency could neither apply for and obtain leave nor even inform his employer, the respondent Bank of the same; (iii) that the petitioner however vide his letter dated 2nd January, 1999 informed the respondent Bank of his sudden departure and applied for 90 days leave; (iv) the respondent Bank though rejected the application for leave only in May, 1999, prior thereto commenced disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner for having absented from duty and which disciplinary proceedings have resulted in the punishment aforesaid being meted out to the petitioner; (v) that the Disciplinary Authority of the respondent Bank has paid no heed to 26 years of unblemished service of the petitioner with the respondent Bank; (vi) that though the respondent Bank vide order dated 3rd July, 2014 was directed to take instructions whether it was willing to convert the punishment meted out to the petitioner to that of voluntary retirement with all consequential retiral benefits and to which the petitioner is willing and which would enable the petitioner to at least have the respondent's share of provident fund, gratuity, leave encashment etc. but the respondent Bank is not agreeable to that also; and, (vii) that the petitioner having an unblemished service record of 26 years should not be deprived of his such retiral benefits. 4. On enquiry whether the petitioner, if the order of dismissal from service were to stand, would not be entitled to the respondent's share of provident fund, gratuity, pension etc., the answer is in the affirmative. 5. I have enquired from the counsel for the petitioner as to when the petitioner returned from USA. 6. The counsel for the petitioner candidly admits that the petitioner has since settled in USA and except for brief visits, has not visited India. 7. It has further been enquired from the counsel for the petitioner as to on what kind of Visa did the petitioner go to USA. 8. The counsel informs that the petitioner was holding a Green Card issued by the US Government and even in December, 1998 had travelled on that basis. He however contends that the same should not be taken as the petitioner having left in December, 1998 without any intention to return, because the petitioner was holding the Green Card since the year 1992 but inspite of that had continued to serve the respondent B