Smt Priyanka Vs the Chief Manager

SMT PRIYANKA W/O SRI ABHIJITH KUMAR AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS WORKING AS ASSISTANT MANAGER CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA KORAMANGALA BRANCH R/AT NO.A-128 TRINITY MEADOWS APARTMENT BELLANDUR MAIN ROAD, BELLANDUR BANGALORE 560 103

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

(BY SRI. NAVEEN J N., ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE CHIEF MANAGER

¶16

CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:40559 WP No. 13177 of 2021

HC-KAR

NO.92, 80 FEET ROAD,

6^TH BLOCK

KORAMANGALA

BANGALORE 560 095

THE REGIONAL MANAGER CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA 1^ST FLOOR SANTHOSH CINEMA COMPLEX K G ROAD, BANGALORE 560009

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI. VENUGOPAL M S., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASH THE NOTICE/COMMUNICATION DTD 28.06.2021 ISSUED BY THE R-1 VIDE ANNX-V AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO ACCEPT AND GRANT THE APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONER FOR SABBATICAL LEAVE FOR 2 YEARS DTD 12.02.2020 VIDE ANNX-C.

¶27

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶28

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶29

3 -

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC:40559 WP No. 13177 of 2021

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

ORAL ORDER

¶33

The petitioner filed this writ petition challenging the notice dated 28.06.2021 issued by respondent No.1, calling upon the petitioner for reporting on duty within 30 days of the notice, failing which, it will be treated that the petitioner has voluntarily vacated her appointment/employment in the Central Bank of India.

¶34

Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this petition are as follows:

¶35

The petitioner is working as an Assistant Manager in Central Bank of India, Koramangala Branch, Bangalore. Since from the date of appointment, the petitioner is working to the utmost satisfaction of her higher authorities. It is contented that the petitioner was diagnosed with dengue fever and delivery was due within one or two weeks from 20.05.2019. The

¶36

4 -

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC:40559 WP No. 13177 of 2021

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

petitioner applied for maternity leave with effect from 30.05.2019.

¶40

Thereafter on 24.11.2019, the petitioner addressed another communication stating that she was on maternity leave from 28.05.2019 to 24.11.2019 and she has undergone C-section operation and her baby is 5 months old and she is also suffering from severe back pain and joint pain. Hence requested for sanction of leave from 25.11.2019 to 26.02.2020.

¶41

The petitioner applied for sabbatical leave for 2 years starting from 27.02.2020. The respondent without holding an enquiry issued a notice dated 28.06.2021 vide Annexure -V calling upon the petitioner to report for the duty within 30 days, failing which it is treated that the petitioner has voluntarily vacated her appointment in the Central Bank of India. The petitioner, aggrieved by the notice filed this writ petition.

¶42

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:40559 WP No. 13177 of 2021

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent.

¶45

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has applied for a leave from 25.11.2019 to 26.02.2020, and thereafter she has applied for sabbatical leave for 2 years. The respondent, without considering the leave application of the petitioner, has arbitrarily issued a notice vide Annexure-V. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the writ petition.

¶46

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that it is only a notice. He submits that the petitioner may be directed to reply to the impugned notice vide Annexure-V and the respondent will consider the same in accordance with law. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dispose of the writ petition.

¶47

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:40559 WP No. 13177 of 2021

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶50

There is no dispute that the petitioner is working in the respondent bank. While discharging her duty she delivered a baby and she was on a maternity leave from 28.05.2019 to 24.11.2019. As the petitioner was suffering from the back pain and joint pain, requested for sanction of leave from 25.11.2019 to 26.02.2020. Thereafter the petitioner has applied for sabbatical leave for 2 years starting from 27.02.2020 on the ground that she wanted to take care of 2 children.

¶51

It is the case of the respondent that the application was rejected. No order was being passed on the application submitted by the petitioner for the sabbatical leave. Without passing the order on the application submitted by the petitioner for sabbatical leave, has issued a notice vide Annexure V dated 28.06.2021.

¶52

7 -

¶53

NC: 2025:KHC:40559 WP No. 13177 of 2021

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

The impugned notice is mere a show cause notice.

¶56

The petitioner without submitting a reply to the notice filed this writ petition. Annexure - V, is treated as a show cause notice. The petitioner is directed to reply to the show cause notice within 25 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and thereafter the respondent is directed to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶57

The petitioner is at liberty to submit a reply to the show cause notice vide Annexure-V, within 25 days from today and thereafter the respondent - bank is directed to consider the reply and also provide personal hearing and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law within two weeks from the date of submitting the reply.

¶58