Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2007 DAILYLAW 2465 (DEL)

S. P. ANAND v. STATE BANK OF INDIA

2007-09-28

Sanjiv Khanna

body2007
( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 31st May, 2007 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioner-appellant on the ground that no case of interference is made out. ( 2 ) THE appellant herein filed a writ petition assailing the order dated 4th january, 2003 passed by the appointing authority and also order dated 18th april, 2006 passed by the appellate authority upholding the validity of the order dated 4th January, 2003. ( 3 ) THE appellant was an employee of the State Bank of India. While he was working as Assistant Manager in the said Bank at G. T. Karnal Road, Shahdara branch, New Delhi, he was transferred and directed to report at the Dehradun branch vide order dated 23rd January, 2001. The appellant however, did not join his place of transfer and chose not to report for duty. The appellant continued in the aforesaid manner without reporting for his posting at Dehradun branch for one year and four months. The respondent-Bank thereafter issued a letter on 25th October, 2002 to the appellant directing him to report for duty and to give satisfactory explanation for his absence and not reporting for duty. Reference was made to Rule 40 (3) of the State Bank of India Officers Service rules, with the advise to report for duty failing which it will be deemed that the appellant had voluntarily vacated the service. The appellant replied to the aforesaid letter in which he had stated that due to unavoidable family circumstances, he could not join his place of transfer at Dehradun and he requested for change of place of posting from Dehradun Branch and sought reconsideration of his transfer orders. He however, did not join his place of posting. ( 4 ) THEREAFTER, order dated 4th January, 2003 was passed by the respondent-Bank in exercise of the powers vested on the authority under the provisions of Rule 40 (3) of the State Bank of India Officers Service Rules. The appellant was informed under the aforesaid order that as the appellant had failed to report for duty inspite of notice, it is deemed that he has voluntarily vacated or left the service amounting to voluntary resignation from the service of the respondent bank with effect from 1st December, 2002. The appellant was informed under the aforesaid order that as the appellant had failed to report for duty inspite of notice, it is deemed that he has voluntarily vacated or left the service amounting to voluntary resignation from the service of the respondent bank with effect from 1st December, 2002. The said order passed by the appointing authority was duly received by the the appellant. However, the appellant did not file any appeal as against the aforesaid order dated 4th january, 2003 till as late as on 14th November, 2005. An appeal was preferred by the appellant after expiry of three years. The said appeal was entertained by the respondent and the same was dismissed holding that no case is made out by the appellant and that the order dated 4th January, 2003 is legal and valid. ( 5 ) BEING aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed a petition before the learned single Judge who has considered the pleas raised before her. Vide order dated 31st May, 2007, the said writ petition was dismissed holding that the appellate authority had passed a well reasoned order after application of mind on all the relevant facts and, therefore, the said order does not call for any interference. ( 6 ) WE have gone through the order passed by the learned Single Judge and also the order passed by the Appellate Authority. So far as the contention with regard to the validity of the provisions of Rule 40 (3) of the State Bank of India officers Service Rules is concerned, no such plea was raised before the learned single Judge in the writ petition and, therefore, the said plea was rightly not considered by the learned Single Judge. Even otherwise, the validity of a similar Rule has been upheld by the Supreme Court in Syndicate Bank Vs. General secretary Syndicate Bank Staff Association (2000) 5 SCC 65 . ( 7 ) THE learned Single Judge has rightly placed reliance on the decision of the supreme Court in DTC Vs. Sardar Singh AIR 2004 SC 4161 . ( 8 ) THE appellant admittedly was transferred to Dehradun Branch under an administrative order dated 23rd June, 2001. He did not rejoin the said Branch till 4th January, 2003, when in terms of Rule 40 (3) he was informed that he has vacated and voluntarily left the service. Sardar Singh AIR 2004 SC 4161 . ( 8 ) THE appellant admittedly was transferred to Dehradun Branch under an administrative order dated 23rd June, 2001. He did not rejoin the said Branch till 4th January, 2003, when in terms of Rule 40 (3) he was informed that he has vacated and voluntarily left the service. Although the appellant has taken up a plea that he had written a number of representations. The Appellate Authority has categorically stated in the order dated 18th April, 2006 that applications/letters, which were stated to have been filed by the appellant were never received by the respective Officers of the respondent-Bank. Therefore, it is apparent that the appellant without complying with the order of transfer, inspite of notice and instead of joining his place of posting, choose to sit at home. ( 9 ) THE appeal was filed after about expiry of three years from the date of order dated 4th January, 2003. The entire records would indicate that the appellant had acted on his own whims by not reporting and joining the place of posting and abide by the order of his employer. As pointed out by the appellate authority, even if the appellant had genuine difficulty, he should have joined the place of posting and then made a representation. ( 10 ) IN our considered opinion the aforesaid order of transfer of the appellant herein cannot be said to be an order which was passed by way of punishment. The appellant was posted in Delhi for a long period of six years. He was then transferred to Dehradun Branch vide order dated 23rd January, 2001. The appellant did not report for duty at Dehradun Branch for more than one year and thereafter, action was taken in terms of Rule 40 (3) and order dated 4th January, 2003 was passed after issuing him notice. ( 11 ) THERE is no merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed. .