LexTHE REGIONAL MANAGER, CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA versus VIJAY KRISHNA NEEMA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 5 S.C.R. 645 -,. THE REGIONAL MANAGER, CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA A -r v. VIJAY KRISHNA NEEMA & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 2242 of 2009) ~ APRIL 8, 2009 B [S.B. SINHA AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.] Service law: Clause 16 of Shastri Award -Absence from duty -Notice to employee to report for duty - Requirement of - Held: In case of absent employee, notice is required to be c served by registered post with acknowledgment due - On facts, there is nothing to show that the fact of change of address of employee was not known to employer- High Court ..- arrived at a finding offact that notice was not served upon him and since he had in his credit 236 days leave, he was entitled D to continuity of service - In the facts and circumstances of the case, interference under Article 136 of the Constitution not called for - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 136. The Respondent was employed in appellant-Bank. E He took extension of leave without permission. Two memos were issued which were returned to bank with an ' endorsement 'refused'. As he did not join duty, show l -~ cause notice was issued as to why disciplinary proceeding be not initiated against him. Respondent filed F a representation upon receipt of the said notice. Respondent was however informed that he had ceased to be in employment of bank having voluntarily abandoned the service. Respondent filed appeal which was dismissed on the ground that the termination of G service was in accordance with the provisions of Bipartite ~ ~ settlement (Shastri Award) and there was no violation of rules of natural justice. Respondent filed Writ Petition before High Court. It held that the appellant had in his credit 236 days leave; that respondent had submitted an 645 H 646 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 5 S.C.R. A application for change of address, however, bank did not sent notice on this address, nor tried to serve the notice personally on him and therefore the rules of natural justice were not complied with and thus respondent was entitled to continuity of service. Hence the appeal. B Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. An employee may, in certain situations, abandon or deemed to have abandoned his job. What constitutes abandonment may· be a matter of a statutory c provision or agreement between the employer and the Union. Although absence without leave for a long time may constitute a grave misconduct on the part of the employee concerned, in a case of this nature, in view of clause 16 of the Shastri Award, an employee can be D treated to have ceased from employment. [Para 14] [656- • ' B] Viveka Nand Sethi v. Chai1man, J & K Bank Ltd. (2005) 5 SCC 337; Punjab & Sind Bank & Ors. v. Sakattar Singh E 2001 (1) SCC 214;Syndicate Bank v. General Secretary, Syndicate Bank StaffAssociation and Anr. (2000) 5 SCC 65 and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Vipin Behari Lal Srivastava (2008) 3 SCC 446, referred to. 1.2. Principle of natural justice, it is trite, does not F operate irrespective of the statutory provisions. Clause 16 of the Shastri Award provides for issuance of such notice. If despite service of notice the employee did not report for duty, the consequences therefor would ensue. [Para 15] [657-D, E] G Uptron India Ltd. v. Shammi Bhan & Anr. (1998) 6 SCC 538 and Scooters India Ltd. v. M. Mohd. Yaqub (2001) 1 SCC \. .. 61, referred to. V.C., Banaras Hindu University & Ors. v. Shrikant (2006) H REGIONAL MANAGER, CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA v. 647 ~ VIJAY KRISHNA NEEMA & ORS. 11 SCC 42 and D.K. Yadav v. JMA Industries Ltd. (1993) 3 A sec 259, referred to. 1.3. In case of an absent employee notice was required to be served by registered post with acknowledgment due. The High Court arrived at a finding B ---..Ii. of fact that notice, in fact, was not served upon him. Appellant merely produced a photostat copy of the envelop. There was nothing to show that the notice was sent under registered cover with acknowledgment due. Furthermore, there is nothing to show that the fact that c _.,,_ the respondent has changed his address was not known ~ to the officers of the bank. The shifting of the residence by the respondent was not denied. In fact, the subsequent event, namely, filing of a suit for recovery of amount of loan from the respondent clearly suggested +- that officers of the appellant were aware of the D respondent's changed address. Moreover, a concurrent ~ finding of f
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.