JUDGMENT : RAJESH MAZUMDAR, J. Heard Mr. A. Ganguly, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. K.K. Nandi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. The petitioner had joined the services of the respondent, i.e. the Bank of Maharashtra, a public sector bank, as a Computer Operator on 07.02.2011 and was initially posted at the Itanagar Branch of the bank under its Guwahati Zone. During the course of his service, the petitioner earned his promotions as an Officer and also complied with orders directing his transfer and posting to various locations throughout India. The petitioner had served the Itanagar Branch with effect from 21.02.2017 and the Naharlagun Branch of the bank where he joined on 28.03.2023. The petitioner was transferred to the Silchar Branch of the bank, and he was promoted as Deputy Manager on 29.01.2024 and again transferred to the Naharlagun Branch on 29.05.2024. 3. The period relevant for the purposes of adjudication of the present list starts from 08.08.2024, when the petitioner was transferred out of the Guwahati Zone to the Dehradun Zone of the bank. It is the case of the petitioner that he had initiated consultations with Specialist Doctors in the field of Orthopaedics on 05.08.2024, prior to the transfer order being issued, who had advised him to undergo several medical examinations during which central and left paracentral disc extrusion at the L4-L5 level was detected. The petitioner accordingly, could not join at Dehradun immediately, and on the insistence of the authorities, had joined on 27.08.2024. The petitioner has stated that he had suffered acute back pain on and from 30.08.2024 and had consulted the specialists at Dehradun. Later, on the verbal approval of leave for a week, the petitioner left for Guwahati on 01.09.2024 and reported back at Dehradun on 08.09.2024. 4. On 18.09.2024, the bank authority addressed a show cause notice to the petitioner regarding his alleged unauthorised absence between 31.08.2024 and 11.09.2024 and by another communication dated 17.09.2024, the petitioner was accused of a callous approach and inappropriate behaviour and asked to show cause as to why disciplinary action should not be initiated against him. 5. By an order dated 20.09.2024, the petitioner was posted as Branch Manager of the proposed Selaquin Branch, Dehradun, by modifying the earlier order through which he was posted at the Kishanganj Branch. The petitioner did not join the said Branch until 14.01.2025. 6. 5. By an order dated 20.09.2024, the petitioner was posted as Branch Manager of the proposed Selaquin Branch, Dehradun, by modifying the earlier order through which he was posted at the Kishanganj Branch. The petitioner did not join the said Branch until 14.01.2025. 6. The Zonal Manager, Dehradun Zone, issued a Memorandum of Charge dated 03.10.2024 proposing to hold a departmental enquiry against the petitioner under Regulation 6 of the Bank of Maharashtra Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulation, 1976, for his alleged unauthorized absence for the period 31.08.2024 to 11.09.2024 and from 17.09.2024 to the date of issuance of the Charge-sheet. The petitioner was directed to submit his statement of defense within 15 days. 7. The petitioner submitted his brief statement of defense on 17.10.2024. He denied the allegations and further claimed to have given an elaborate explanation for his absence and furnished all the necessary documents regarding his medical documents. 8. Both parties have asserted that the enquiry proceedings commenced against the petitioner with a preliminary hearing being held on 28.01.2025. The enquiry was held through online mode, with all the participants, viz. the Inquiring Officer, the Presenting Officer, the Charged Officer, and the Assisting Officer, acting in virtual mode. 9. Even as the enquiry proceedings continued, the petitioner, who was officiating as the Branch Manager of Selaquin Branch, Dehradun, made an application on 07.02.2025, requesting the bank authorities to permit him to visit his previous Branch at Naharlagun and Itanagar, to collect essential documents related to the inquiry. In the application, he had also prayed for permission to visit Guwahati to collect medical documents from Apollo Hospital and the Shankar Dev Netralaya. However, the petitioner was not permitted to travel to Guwahati. Subsequently, by a letter dated 10.02.2025, the petitioner prayed for the grant of 15 days' privilege leave to attend his mother, who was at that time suffering illness at his hometown, Silchar, but the leave was rejected, and he was asked to join his duties in the Selaquin Branch immediately. 10. When the leave prayed for by the petitioner had not been granted to him, it is the case of the petitioner that, in sheer despair and under duress, he wrote an email to the Authorities at Dehradun on 10.02.2025, expressing his intention to resign from the service of the respondent bank and requesting access to the HRMS to enable him to submit his resignation. The petitioner had put in another e-mail on 21.2.2025 requesting access to the HRMS. 11. On 08.05.2025, the petitioner addressed another e-mail at 6:13 p.m. to the concerned authority requesting his transfer from the Dehradun Zone to the Guwahati Zone, on the grounds that his mother was a person suffering from benchmark disability and in accordance with the Office Memorandum dated 08.10.2018, the petitioner claimed he would be exempted from the routine exercise of transfer/rotational transfer since he was the primary caregiver to his mother. 12. The respondent authorities at Dehradun sent an email at 6:40 p.m. on 08.05.2025 to the petitioner, communicating the purported acceptance of the resignation of the petitioner. 13. Since the condition of the mother of the petitioner steadily deteriorated, the petitioner took her to the Silchar Medical College at Silchar on 23.05.2025, where, on 29.05.2025, the mother of the petitioner was advised to obtain the opinion of an appropriate Specialist. By a certificate dated 03.06.2025, the Specialist at the Department of Psychiatry in the Silchar Medical College Hospital certified that the mother of the petitioner was suffering from a Neurodegenerative Disorder/Parkinson's disease. 14. On 04.06.2025, the petitioner addressed a representation to the competent bank authorities, informing them of his mother's disability, which was the main reason that compelled him to seek a consideration of his case for transfer to the Guwahati Zone on humanitarian grounds and in terms of the Office Memorandum dated 08.10.2018. In reply, the respondent authorities sent an email advising the petitioner to immediately close his ECC account or to give written consent to adjust the outstanding amount through his terminal benefits. Later, on 17.06.2025, the mother of the petitioner was issued a certificate to the effect that she had a 55% disability of a permanent nature, which disability was included in the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. 15. The application of the petitioner, sent to the bank authorities after receipt of the Disability Certificate, to consider the withdrawal of the resignation and request for transfer from his present place of posting on compassionate and medical grounds, remained unanswered by the respondent bank. 16. It is the case of the respondent authorities that the cause of action for the present writ petition arose in Dehradun. 16. It is the case of the respondent authorities that the cause of action for the present writ petition arose in Dehradun. The respondent states in the affidavit- in-opposition that the petitioner had, pursuant to the transfer order dated 08.08.2024, joined at the Dehradun Zone on 28.08.2024, and had remained absent from the Branch without informing the Branch Authority from 31.08.2025 to 11.09.2024. It is the case of the respondents that the petitioner left Dehradun for Guwahati without prior approval of the Competent Authority and that mere submission of an application for sick leave did not amount to acceptance of the same. The respondents have denied the assertion of the petitioner that the Zonal Manager had allowed leave of seven days verbally to the petitioner. 17. The respondent contended that the petitioner had submitted his resignation on 10.02.2025 and had also submitted a prayer for acceptance of the resignation on 21.02.2025. 18. The respondent further contends in the affidavit-in-opposition that the petitioner left the bank on 17.09.2024 without any information to any authority of the bank. The respondents further contend that the transfer of the petitioner to the Selaquin Branch was in accordance with the administrative requirements of the bank. The respondents found fault with the petitioner when he did not submit a reply to the show cause letter dated 18.09.2024, which required him to submit a reply within three days. The respondents do not deny that the petitioner submitted his reply on 15.10.2024. It is the case of the respondent bank that the petitioner was served with a Memorandum and Article of Charge dated 03.10.2024, to which the petitioner had filed a statement of defence on 17.10.2024. The respondents admitted the appointment of the Inquiry Authority and the Presenting Officer and that the proceedings of the inquiry were held on 28.01.2025, 01.02.2025, 06.02.2025 and 05.03.2025, through online mode. 19. The respondents contend that the Inquiry Authority came to a finding on 24.03.2025 that the charge against the petitioner stood proved and further that the findings of the inquiry were served upon the petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority by a letter dated 26.03.2025. The respondents contend that the refusal of privilege leave to the petitioner on 10.02.2025 was based on past leave record, applicability of privilege leave, bank crucial fourth financial quarter and other administrative exigencies. 20. The respondents contend that the refusal of privilege leave to the petitioner on 10.02.2025 was based on past leave record, applicability of privilege leave, bank crucial fourth financial quarter and other administrative exigencies. 20. It has been contended on the part of the respondent bank that the resignation of the petitioner, which was submitted on 10.02.2025, and was followed by a request for acceptance of resignation on 21.02.2025, was accepted by the Competent Authority on 08.05.2025, and the petitioner was released from his services on 09.05.2025. 21. It is the contention of the respondent authorities that the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner had culminated in the imposition of a punishment of censure upon the petitioner by order dated 15.04.2025, and therefore, as on 08.05.2025, when the resignation given by the petitioner had been accepted, there was no pending disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner. The respondent authorities have further contended that, since the petitioner had not closed his ECC account, he was advised to close the same or to give consent to adjust the outstanding amount through his terminal benefits. 22. It has been contended on behalf of the respondent bank that the petitioner had served at the Guwahati Zone from 07.02.2011 to 08.08.2024, and as per the transfer policy of the bank, an officer who had completed six years of continuous service in a zone should be transferred to another zone. 23. It has been contended that the transfer of an officer of the bank is directed as per administrative requirements. 24. In his reply affidavit, the petitioner has reiterated that the reason for his intermittent absence was his own medical condition, as well as the requirement of treatment to be given to his mother. The petitioner has submitted that the acceptance of the resignation by the respondent authorities was received by the petitioner when he was at Silchar and therefore, a part of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court. It has been further submitted that communications regarding the acceptance of the petitioner's resignation were required to be given at his permanent address as per bank records, which address is also within the jurisdiction of this Court. 25. It has been further submitted that communications regarding the acceptance of the petitioner's resignation were required to be given at his permanent address as per bank records, which address is also within the jurisdiction of this Court. 25. The petitioner has also reiterated that his wife, who was suffering from pregnancy related issues required his attention and that the messages exchanged with the Superior Bank Officials would demonstrate that the petitioner was not seeking a transfer in the instant case, on the ground of his own or his wife's illness, but rather to take care of his ailing mother, who has been certified to be suffering from benchmark disability. 26. The petitioner has submitted that he had received a copy of the enquiry report by email and also by post to his hometown at Silchar. In the reply affidavit, it has been asserted that the petitioner had communicated his desire to resign from service as a result of the severe harassment and duress caused to him on account of the bank's total non-cooperation in considering his prayers for leave to pursue the treatment of his ailing mother. 27. The reply affidavit has indicated that the respondent bank, in their reply, did not deny that the acceptance of the petitioner's resignation was communicated after the petitioner requested a transfer from the Dehradun Zone to the Guwahati Zone. The petitioner has specifically denied receipt of the copy of the order dated 15.04.2025, by which the Disciplinary Authority had allegedly imposed the punishment of censure upon the petitioner. 28. The reply affidavit has referred to the provisions of the exit policy of the Bank of Maharashtra, as approved by the Board of Directors in the Board Meeting dated 07.06.2024, to contend that the petitioner would have been entitled to withdraw his request at any time before his date of relieving from the bank. Other provisions regarding service of a written notice of three months on resignation and the competence of the authority that accepted the resignation have been referred to. By relying upon the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, read with the provisions of the Office Memorandum dated 08.10.2018, the petitioner has reasserted his right to be considered for transfer within the Guwahati Zone. 29. Mr. By relying upon the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, read with the provisions of the Office Memorandum dated 08.10.2018, the petitioner has reasserted his right to be considered for transfer within the Guwahati Zone. 29. Mr. Ganguli, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the Bank of Maharashtra is a public sector bank, in which the Government of India has a majority stake and pervasive control and that the bank has its offices and branches all over India, including Assam and other North-Eastern States. 30. The learned counsel has submitted that his failure to join within the stipulated time given in the transfer order, and his later alleged absence due to his own suffering, as well as the medical condition of his wife and mother, had led the respondent authorities to issue him a charge sheet, which culminated in inquiry proceedings. 31. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the acceptance of the resignation, which is being challenged in the writ petition, had been received by the petitioner at a location within the jurisdiction of this Court and the refusal of the respondent authorities to consider the petitioner to a location within the jurisdiction of this Court has also given rise to the cause of action of this writ petition. He submits that the respondents, who have offices within the jurisdiction of this Court, are amenable to the jurisdiction of this Court and have prayed for an appropriate adjudication of the prayers made in the writ petition. 32. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that although the final orders allegedly passed in the disciplinary proceedings were not a part of the challenge made in this writ petition, the proceedings undertaken in the inquiry, culminating in the order dated 15.04.2025, would reveal that the inquiry had been conducted even when the petitioner was available within the jurisdiction of this Court. The learned counsel has submitted that the challenge was not preferred to the alleged order passed in the disciplinary proceeding since the petitioner never received a copy of the aforesaid order and the said order has come to the knowledge of the petitioner only when the affidavit-in-opposition had been filed by the respondent authorities. 33. The learned counsel has submitted that the challenge was not preferred to the alleged order passed in the disciplinary proceeding since the petitioner never received a copy of the aforesaid order and the said order has come to the knowledge of the petitioner only when the affidavit-in-opposition had been filed by the respondent authorities. 33. Addressing the primary challenge made in this writ petition regarding the acceptance of the resignation of the petitioner, the learned counsel has submitted that since the purported acceptance was in violation of the Exit Policy and circular dated 14.9.2023 of the respondent authorities, the same cannot be sustained in law. 34. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per the circular dated 14.9.2023, resignation of an employee of the bank has to be submitted through the HRMS portal. A perusal of the e-mail dated 21.02.2025 would demonstrate that the petitioner was not able to submit his resignation in the HRMS, and therefore, it is also the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that when the resignation letter could not be submitted through the HRMS, there was practically no resignation letter on record before the respondent bank to be acted upon. 35. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the circular dated 14.09.2023 to submit that all applications for resignation from the service of the bank are required to be punched in through the HRMS portal only, and it is apparent that the petitioner was not able to access the HRMS portal either on 10.02.2025 or 21.02.2025 or on any date thereafter, to punch in his resignation. 36. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that from 10.02.2025 to 08.05.2025, there is no record to show, and it is also not the case of the respondents, that the petitioner was allowed access to the HRMS to punch in his resignation. He submits that only when he had made an application on 08.05.2025 before the bank praying for a transfer to the Guwahati Zone, on the same date itself, the respondent authority issued the letter dated 08.05.2025 purportedly conveying the permission of the competent authority to the petitioner to resign, and that he would be relieved on 09.05.2025 after office hours, subject to depositing and repaying all dues and loans. 37. 37. The learned counsel has submitted that when the order dated 15.04.2025, which had allegedly closed the disciplinary proceedings, had never been served upon the petitioner by any mode whatsoever, and had been kept in the files of the respondent authorities, the same would have no legal entity, and therefore, it has to be deemed that the disciplinary proceeding had not culminated against the petitioner as on 08.06.2025. On the basis of the provisions of the Exit Policy, the learned counsel has submitted that the resignation could not have been accepted during the pendency of the disciplinary proceeding. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to paragraph No. 19 of the affidavit-in- opposition to submit that the respondent in their affidavit does not state that the order dated 15.04.2025 was served upon the petitioner by any mode whatsoever. 38. By referring to the resignation tendered by the petitioner, the learned counsel has submitted that the very language of the resignation letter would indicate the stress and duress faced by the petitioner when he submitted the alleged resignation letter. The learned counsel has submitted that the respondent authorities were well in the knowledge that the petitioner had been unable to attend his services regularly due to his own medical condition, as well as the mental illness being suffered by the mother of the petitioner and in fact, for his absence, a charge sheet had also been issued to him. 39. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it is settled in law that before accepting resignations from the employee, counseling would be required not only for the employer to understand the cause of such resignation, but also to give the employee an opportunity to reflect on the consequences of such resignation. By referring to Clause 8.1 of the Exit Policy of the respondent bank, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the competent authority was required to conduct an “Exit Interview” during the notice period. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondents did not conduct any exit interview prior to accepting the resignation, and even in that view of the matter, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. 40. Mr. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondents did not conduct any exit interview prior to accepting the resignation, and even in that view of the matter, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. 40. Mr. K.K. Nandi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent bank, has referred to the exit policy of the bank to submit that an officer can resign from the services of the bank by serving a written notice of three months to the competent authority. For this, he has relied upon Clause 3.3.1 of the Exit Policy. By referring to Clause 3.3.5, the learned counsel has submitted that the competent authority has to convey a decision, that is, either a sanction or a rejection, in writing, within the notice period. The learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the Exit Policy does not refer to submission of applications through the HRMS but only requires submission of an application to the competent authority. 41. The learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that although a submission was made on behalf of the petitioner that the resignation had been withdrawn, there is nothing on record produced by the petitioner to substantiate his assertion of the withdrawal of resignation. 42. The learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that there was no fault in the disciplinary proceedings conducted against the petitioner. He further submitted that the report of the enquiry officer had been served upon the petitioner prior to passing of the order dated 15.04.2025, which imposed the penalty of censure upon the petitioner and therefore, he submits that as on 08.05.2025, no disciplinary proceeding was pending against the petitioner. It is submitted by Mr. Nandi, learned counsel, that therefore, there was no bar on the respondent authority to have accepted the resignation tendered by the petitioner. On a pointed query by the Court, the learned counsel could not produce any material to show that the order dated 15.04.2025 had been dispatched to the petitioner or had been served upon him, either prior to 08.05.2025 or even thereafter. The respondents did not raise any question or argue against the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of jurisdiction during the hearing of the matter, and therefore, although a feeble reference was taken in the affidavit-in-opposition, in the absence of any arguments in that regard, this Court is not required to delve into the issue. The respondents did not raise any question or argue against the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of jurisdiction during the hearing of the matter, and therefore, although a feeble reference was taken in the affidavit-in-opposition, in the absence of any arguments in that regard, this Court is not required to delve into the issue. Pertinent that the petitioner had answered the assertions of the respondents on the said issue in his affidavit-in-reply, and the same were not contradicted during the hearing by the respondents. 43. This Court have considered the rival submissions made on behalf of the contesting parties and have also taken note of the different documents referred to, including the circular dated 14.09.2023, which, though not a part of the records, was not disputed by the counsel for the respondent; rather, it was referred to and relied upon by both the contesting parties. 44. Let this Court, at the outset, consider the submission on behalf of the petitioner that he was not allowed to submit his resignation through the HRMS, and in the absence of an application for resignation being submitted through a process required by the circular dated 14.9.2023, the respondent authorities could not have accepted the purported resignation. 45. The relevant portions of the Exit Policy of the bank and the relevant portion of the Circular dated 14.09.2023 are quoted herein below for ease of reference: “ Relvant portion of exit policy introduced on 23.7.2024 3.3. Resignation 3.3.1. An Officer can resign from the services of the Bank by serving a written notice of 3 months submitted to the competent authority. 3.3.2. An Award Staff can resign from the services of the Bank by serving a written notice of 1 month in case of confirmed employee or 14 days in case the Award staff who is a probationer to the competent authority. 3.3.3. The Competent authority for various categories of Officers / Award staff are as under 3.3.4. The competent authority may in his / her discretion waive the notice period as per the administrative exigencies and the situation then prevailing by duly recording his / her justification / recovery of employee's salary in lieu of the notice period. However, the competent authority shall obtain necessary clearance from vigilance, Inspection & Disciplinary Matters Cell prior providing approval for waiving of notice period / relieving from the services of the bank. 2.3.5. However, the competent authority shall obtain necessary clearance from vigilance, Inspection & Disciplinary Matters Cell prior providing approval for waiving of notice period / relieving from the services of the bank. 2.3.5. The competent authority shall convey the decision (sanction / rejection) on the request of the employee to resign in writing within the notice period. 3.3.6. The employee can also withdraw his/her request to resign before his / her date of relieving from the Bank subject to the condition that the competent authority permits the same. (6) DISCIPLINARY ACTION CASES 6.4 An employee against whom disciplinary proceedings are pending shall not voluntarily retire/resign from the services of the Bank without the prior approval in writing of the competent Authority and any notice of resignation or voluntarily retirement given by such an officer before or during the disciplinary proceeding shall not take effect unless it is accepted by the Competent Authority.” Relevant portion of circular dated 14.9.2023 Sub: Introduction of VRS/Resignation facility in HR@1Click Information Technology has brought in many changes in the methodology of delivery of services to end users. It has reduced the TAT and increased the outreach at a much lower cost. These changes in the technology domain has increased our expectation as service provider/user. Our peers in banking domain has continuously been Improvising on IT infrastructure for the convenience of employees and to reduce the time gap from request to receipt of service. Our bank has also Invested heavily in improving the HR processes with the help of IT and introduction of HR@1Click was the first such giant step towards achieving the goals as envisaged by our top management. Many employee centric services/processes have been made live in HR@1Click for the convenience and quick delivery and we have been reaping the benefits. Now the bank has added another module in the existing bouquet and VRS/Resignation Module has been made live in HRMS where all employees from Branches, Zonal Offices & Head Office can raise their request for VRS/Resignation and track the proceedings and approvals for their request. The aim to introduce VRS/Resignation Module is to make available a homogenous system and process for application and sanction of VRS/Resignation requests. The aim to introduce VRS/Resignation Module is to make available a homogenous system and process for application and sanction of VRS/Resignation requests. The brief process flow for VRS/Resignation module in HR@1Click is mentioned below and detailed SOP for Employees both requester and approver (Operating Procedure) is enclosed: a. Application: Employees who wishes to apply for VRS must mandatorily have completed 20 years of active service on the date of application. However, no such requirement is mandated for Resignation requests. The request can be raised by navigating to the path as below and process & workflow as enclosed in SOP. HRMS > Employee Self Service > VRS & Resignation b. Forwarding : The forwarding authority will be enabled to make necessary changes to the details punched and then forward the request to Recommending Authority. c. Recommendation: Recommending authority recommends the request to Sanctioning authority for approval. d. Processing Officer: The processing officer is the officer who verifies all the details mentioned and then forwards the request to Sanctioning authority e. Sanction: The sanctioning authority sanctions the request on basis of the recommendations made. f. Compliance officer: The request once sanctioned by Sanctioning authority flows to the Forwarding authority for compliance at his/her level and then he/she may download and provide Sanction letter to the requester g. Path for Forwarding, Recommending, Processing and Compliance officer is as below and detailed process along with workflow is as enclosed in SOP HRMS > Manager Self Service > VRS & Resignation Employees concerned are advised to take note of the above and process all the VRS/Resignation applications through HR@1Click only. VRS/Resignation User Manual Background: Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) Is a program designed by Bank of Maharashtra to offer the employees an opportunity to retire voluntarily before their regular retirement age. Minimum service In Bank should be of 20 years for being eligible to apply for VRS. Resignation is another program designed to offer employees an opportunity to resign from the services of the Bank at any stage of their employment with Bank. No minimum service is required for being eligible to apply for Resignation. Projected date of relleving post application of Resignation/VRS is 90 days for officers and 30 days for award staff from date of application. No minimum service is required for being eligible to apply for Resignation. Projected date of relleving post application of Resignation/VRS is 90 days for officers and 30 days for award staff from date of application. As-Is Process: Current process as followed in Branches, Zones and Head Office is as follows: a. VRS/Resignation application is presented to the reporting authority through a filled hard copy format. b. The reporting authority forwards the application to the forwarding authority who on verification of relevant details forwards the application to recommending authority at HO/ZO for their approval through post/mails. c. The recommending authority further verifies the details including loans, advances, LWP, Disciplinary status etc. before forwarding the request to Sanctioning authority. d. The sanctioning authority sanctions/rejects the VRS/Resignation, which is conveyed to the employee and his supervisor through mail/posts. e. On the approved date of relieving, the supervisor relieves the employee from the services of the bank and provides the relieving letter to the employee of the date of relieving. To be process In order to improve the request flow and TAT with preserving of records at a central repository, the process of VRS and Resignation is implemented in HRMS with below workflow and validations A. Application : The employee applies for VRS/Resignation from HRMS system. The navigation to apply for VRS/Resignations is as HRMS > Employee Self Service > VRS & Resignation (B) On navigating to the VRS/Resignation tile, the below screen appears where the details are to be entered. a. Application Type : The applicant selects Application Type from dropdown where available options are VRS and Resignation. System validates for active service to be more than 20 years for allowing submission of VRS. However, no validation in terms of service duration is set for submission of Resignation request. b. Total Service Duration: Total Service duration of the applicant is auto populated as service duration till date of application. c. Total Inactive Service: Total Inactive Service is derived from the inactive services owing to LWP/Suspension etc. until date of application. d. Total Active Service: The Total active service is derived as total service post reducing the Inactive services till date of application. e. Bond period: Any bond period if applicable to the applicant. f. Date of Resignation/VRS: Applicant to select the date of Resignation/VRS application in this field. until date of application. d. Total Active Service: The Total active service is derived as total service post reducing the Inactive services till date of application. e. Bond period: Any bond period if applicable to the applicant. f. Date of Resignation/VRS: Applicant to select the date of Resignation/VRS application in this field. g. Disciplinary Action Status: Disciplinary action if any is applicable to the employee is reflected here at this field. h. Reason for VRS/Resignation: The applicant to enter the reason for Resignation/VRS In this text box and detail the reason for applying exit from Bank of Maharashtra. i. Tentative date of Relieving: System calculated tentative date of relieving as 90 days for officer and 30 days for Award Staff from date of application. J. Request for Early relieving: In case the applicant request for an early reliving than as "Tentative date of Relieving", the applicant should select Yes and if "Tentative date of Relieving is accepted to applicant then may select No in the dropdown menu. k. Requested Relieving date: Requested relieving date needs to be filled as a date lying between Date of application and Tentative date of relieving if the applicant selects "Yes" in the previous field. l. Loans/Advances of the requester is auto fetched in the above screenshot where the details pertaining to available loans/advances are auto fetched. Additionally if any detail requires to be added by the applicant, the same can be achieved by using Add button and filling in the details. m. Attachments: Requester in the attachment option here may attach any relevant supporting documents. Post entering the relevant details in the fields above and selecting the declarations, the requester may submit the request for further processing by Forwarding and Sanctioning authorities and below screen appears. The application status may be viewed in Claim History tab. B. Forwarding : The VRS/Resignation application submitted by the employee is available at approval queue of the supervisory authority of the employee. The authority navigates to HRMS > Manager Self Service > VRS & Resignation Approval to process on the pending request of VRS/Resignation. The application status may be viewed in Claim History tab. B. Forwarding : The VRS/Resignation application submitted by the employee is available at approval queue of the supervisory authority of the employee. The authority navigates to HRMS > Manager Self Service > VRS & Resignation Approval to process on the pending request of VRS/Resignation. The application of the employee is navigated from above navigation and on clicking on the application of VRS/Resignation, the request opens as below where the tab for requester as well as Immediate Supervisor appears where the authority may change below details: a. Applicant's Disciplinary Action status: If any change in The Disciplinary Status, the authority at this level may update the same. b. Disciplinary action details: Details if any can be entered by authority in this field. c. Recommending for early relieving: In this field, the authority recommends for any early relieving by selecting Yes or No from dropdown. d. Recommended Relieving Date: If selected Yes in above field, the authority has to recommend a relieving date post Date of application upto the "Tentative Relieving Date". e. Inspection Comments: Authority to enter any Inspection comments for the applicant. f. Vigilance Comments: Authority to enter any Vigilance comments for the applicant. g. DM Cell Comments: Authority to enter any DM Cell comments for the applicant. h. Recommending Authority Comments: Recommending authority to enter the recommending authority comments here. i. Loans/Advances detalls: The authority may add/delete/edit the loan details as per the existing records. Similar to above workflow, the request is forwarded to various authorities upto Approver 5 depending upon the source of the application and the approving authority level. At each recommending level, the authorities can edit/update the same set of records as done by immediate supervisor. C. Approving: Final Approver (Approver 5) is the approving authority who on various recommendations from various authorities, processes the request and approves/rejects the request as the case may be. The navigation for Approving author is HRMS > Manager Self Service > VRS & Resignation Approval to process on the pending request of VRS/Resignation. At this level, the approver can edit/add/delete details as per the same that was accessible to Supervisory authority.” 46. The navigation for Approving author is HRMS > Manager Self Service > VRS & Resignation Approval to process on the pending request of VRS/Resignation. At this level, the approver can edit/add/delete details as per the same that was accessible to Supervisory authority.” 46. The Exit policy of the bank, which required an application to be submitted to the competent authority as per Clause 3.3.1, was issued on 16.06.2023, and the circular requiring the applications to be submitted only through the HRMS was brought into force on 14.09.2023. This Court is of the unhesitant view that an application tendering resignation has to be addressed to the competent authority as given in the Exit Policy; however, the mode and manner of submitting such an application on or after 15.09.2023 would be only through the HRMS, as required by the circular dated 14.9.2023. 47. In the present case, despite requests made by the petitioner on 10.02.2025 and 21.02.2025 to enable him to submit in the resignation letter through the HRMS, there is no evidence on record to show that either such permission or such access to the HRMS had been allowed to the petitioner or that he had successfully submitted his resignation letter through the HRMS. Thus, this Court finds force in the submission that as on 08.05.2025, there did not exist any resignation letter submitted by the petitioner through the proper mode to the authority competent to deal with such applications. The natural corollary to such a finding has to be that the question of accepting an application that does not exist cannot arise. 48. This Court also finds force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that even as per the Exit Policy of the respondent bank, a service holder could not have submitted a resignation letter during the pendency of disciplinary proceedings against him, and in the present case, even if it is assumed that the order dated 15.4.2025 has any force in law, the communications dated 10.02.2025 and 21.02.2025, which are prior to 15.04.2025 could not be considered as tendering his resignation, since apparently on those dates, the disciplinary proceedings were continuing. In any case, when the respondents have not been able to demonstrate that the order dated 15.04.2025 was ever served upon the petitioner, such order would be ineffective till it is served upon the petitioner. In any case, when the respondents have not been able to demonstrate that the order dated 15.04.2025 was ever served upon the petitioner, such order would be ineffective till it is served upon the petitioner. Since there is no assertion by the respondents that such an order was served upon the petitioner on or before 08.05.2025, it has to be deemed that the disciplinary proceedings had not culminated till such date, so as to enable the respondents to accept the resignation of the petitioner. 49. The submission of the learned counsel for the respondent that there was no record of withdrawal of resignation by the petitioner has to be considered, only to be rejected, since it has already been held that the petitioner had not been allowed to submit his resignation through the HRMS and therefore, there was no valid resignation letter before the respondent authorities on which they could have passed any orders. In such circumstances, the requirement of withdrawal of the resignation, when no such resignation was placed through the proper channel, cannot and does not arise. 50. In view of the findings arrived at, I am of the considered opinion that the acceptance of the purported resignation of the petitioner by the respondents deserves interference and, accordingly, orders relieving the petitioner from his services of the respondent Bank with effect from 9.5.2025 are interfered with and set aside. 51. Consequently, the respondents shall reinstate the petitioner in his services, restoring him to the position held by him immediately prior to the illegal termination, forthwith and in any case within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Since the petitioner had been kept out of service on the basis of an illegal order, I am of the considered view that requiring the respondents to pay 50% of the basic pay to the petitioner from the date of his illegal termination to the date of his reinstatement would serve the ends of justice and equity. Ordered accordingly. The period of absence from the date of termination to the date of reinstatement shall be regularised as continuous service for all purposes except for the purposes of back wages, which have already been dealt with. He shall be entitled to all other service benefits for the aforesaid period, including continuity in service, notional fixation of pay and seniority. 52. The period of absence from the date of termination to the date of reinstatement shall be regularised as continuous service for all purposes except for the purposes of back wages, which have already been dealt with. He shall be entitled to all other service benefits for the aforesaid period, including continuity in service, notional fixation of pay and seniority. 52. Since the impugned acceptance of the alleged resignation of the petitioner by the respondent authority has suffered an interference, the rest of the grounds and submissions do not require any discussion or adjudication. 53. It is observed that the petitioner had allegedly resorted to unauthorised absence for intermittent periods, and one of such periods of absence has already been the subject matter of a disciplinary proceeding, where the petitioner has been dealt with by awarding him a censure. The respondents would be at liberty to regularise any period of absence prior to the date of termination in accordance with law, and after giving the petitioner a fair opportunity to explain his absence. It is expected that the respondents shall keep in view the assertion of the petitioner that he was/is the caregiver to his mother, a person suffering from benchmark disability, before coming to any conclusion which may be detrimental to his services. 54. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.