Aggrieved thereby he filed a writ petition before the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh.
The inquiry officer found the charges proved and held the respondent guilty of serious mis conduct by remaining unauthisedly absent for over two years and misutilising the car loan of Rs.
The respondent joined the appellant Bank as a Probationary Officer in 1972.
Thereafter, vide letter dated 20.1.1997 the companyies of the inquiry report dated 2.12.1996 was furnished to him.
Thereafter, on 19.10.1996, 7.11.1996 and 21.12.1996 the appellant Bank once again requested the respondent to attend the inquiry proceedings.
39,780/ .
This was repeated by another letter dated 9.7.1996.
In the interregnum the appellant Bank decided to draw a disciplinary proceeding against the respondent.
On 10.5.1994 the Bank requested the respondent to immediately report for duty.
The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal.
Thereafter, by the letters dated 30.8.1996, 11.9.1996, 20.9.1996 and 7.10.1996 the appellant Bank informed the respondent about the appointment of inquiry officer, and the date of inquiry proceeding.
Aggrieved thereby the respondent carried an unsuccessful appeal before the Appellate Authority.
However, availed LTC facilities during the period within he was unauthorisedly absent, and submitted claim to the branch.
It was further stated that in the absence of any companymunication from the Bank on his resignation within the stipulated time, his resignation was deemed to have been accepted and the respondent blatantly refused to participate in the inquiry proceedings.
He did number report for duty on 1.4.1994.
However, the respondent failed to attend the inquiry proceedings on 16.10.1996, 31.10.1996 and 5.11.1996, the same was companycluded ex parte on 5.11.1996.
However, misutilised the funds so lent without actually purchasing any vehicle and subsequently deposited an amount of Rs.
The disciplinary authority accepted the finding of the inquiry officer and by order dated 21.1.1997 imposed a penalty of dismissal from service with immediate effect.
By a letter dated 7.2.1994, he was asked to report for duty immediately.
39,780/ during October 1993, originally proposing to avail to LTC facilities during 16.09.1993 to 21.09.1993.
On 9.7.1996 the following charges were framed against the respondent Shri Md. Nizamuddin availed a loan of Rs.
On 7.2.1994 the respondent applied for extraordinary leave from Ist February, 1994 to 31st March, 1994.
In this manner, he misutilised the advance of Rs.
On 19.5.1994 the respondent instead of reporting for duty or replying the letter dated 10.5.1994 companytinued his unauthrised absence and opted for voluntarily retiring from the services of the appellant Bank.
Briefly stated the facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are as follows.
In response to the request of the respondent the appellant Bank by the letter dated 13.7.1994 and 8.11.1994 requested the respondent to appear for an exit interview to companysider his request for voluntarily retirement.
Mr. Nizamuddin, thereafter, did number refund the LTC advance availed by him.
Vide letter dated 7.11.1997 the respondent was requested to submit his written brief which he failed to do.
80,000/ from Secunderabad Branch for purchase of vehicle.
Since the respondent failed to participate in the inquiry proceeding held on 19.9.1996 the companyies of the inquiry proceedings were sent to him, intimating him about the next date of inquiry proceeding.
We numbered with dismay that in spite of the facts as adumbrated, the learned Single Judge interfered with the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority and affirmed by the Appellate Authority by its judgment and order dated 2.5.2003.
He was thereafter promoted as Middle Management Officer Grade II in 1981.
Shri Md. Nizamuddin availed LTC advance of Rs.
The registered letters sent by the branch were returned undelivered.
80,000/ sanctioned in his name.
95,120/ after a lapse of 2 years and 2 months to close the account.
The respondent unauthorisedly absented himself from duty with effect from 1.2.1994 onwards.
K. Sema, J. Heard the parties.
This appeal is preferred by the General Manager, Appellate Authority, Bank of India.
The claim, was therefore, number sanctioned.
The challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 14.8.2003 passed by the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court affirming the order of the Single Judge passed on 2.5.2003.
On 11.10.1996 the respondent in response to the letter dated 7.10.1996, companytended that he had already submitted his resignation letter about three years back and the same was pending acceptance by the appellant Bank.
The aforesaid chargesheet was sent at the address of the respondent and it was received by the family member of the respondent, namely, Naseem Fatima, wife of the respondent, on 12.7.1996.
