R K Bharat Krishna Vs Canara Bank

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:15825 WP No. 34367 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 34367 OF 2024 (S-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

R.K.BHARAT KRISHNA S/O. LATE SHRI RAMPATI KASI SUDARSANAM AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS STAFF NUMBER:839476 RESIDING AT: 405 DS MAX STARWOOD, KEREGUDDADAHALLI, BANGALORE - 560090

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SMT. SHILPA PRASAD, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

CANARA BANK

¶12

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

A BANKING CORPORATION 112, J.C. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560002 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

¶14

DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER CANARA BANK HUMAN RESOURCES SECTION, CIRCLE OFFICE, BENGALURU-560001.

¶15

ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER CANARA BANK, HUMAN RESOURCES SECTION REGIONAL OFFICE MYSORE RURAL-570023.

¶16

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:15825 WP No. 34367 of 2024

¶17

DIVISIONAL MANAGER CANARA BANK, REGIONAL OFFICE MYSORE RURAL - 570023

¶18

SENIOR MANAGER CANARA BANK, MR. ABHIJIT INCHARGE, HRM SECTION BANGALORE CIRCLE OFFICE BENGALURU-560001.

¶19

BRANCH MANAGER CANARA BANK, PERIYAPATNA BRANCH (4793) KARNATAKA - 570001

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. T P MUTHANNA, ADVOCATE)

¶22

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH PROCEEDINGS OF THE ASST. GENERAL MANAGER DATED 07.11.2024 BEARING REF.NO.BLC/HRM/ROMYSRL/13/839476/RESIGN/2024 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 (ANNEXURE-H) WHEREBY THE RESIGNATION OF PETITIONER WAS ACCEPTED, AND THEREBY PERMIT THE PETITIONER TO WITHDRAW HIS RESIGNATION AND ETC.

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

The petitioner has challenged an order

¶27

bearing No. BLC/HRM/ROMYSRL/13/839476/RESIGN/2024 dated 07.11.2024 issued by the respondent No.3, accepting his resignation. He has also challenged a communication bearing

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:15825 WP No. 34367 of 2024

¶29

No.HRMLROMYSRL:839476:2024 dated 12.11.2024 issued by the respondent No.4 treating the petitioner as exited from the services of the bank.

¶30

(i) The facts in brief are that the petitioner earlier served in Indian Air Force and took voluntary retirement. Thereafter he joined the services of the respondents' as Customer Service Associate on 05.12.2022. He was thereafter sent for training and a posting order dated 17.12.2022 was issued posting him at Canara Bank, Periyapatna branch, Mysuru.

¶31

(ii) The petitioner contends that due to some reasons beyond his control, he could not attend to his work and therefore requested the respondents to transfer him to Bengaluru to look after his mother, who was ailing. However, the request of the petitioner was not considered and therefore, the petitioner had abstained from duty due to reasons beyond his control. He contends that during November and December, 2023, the salary of the petitioner was not credited into his account and after a representation was filed on 27.11.2023, his salary was restored.

¶32

4 -

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC:15825 WP No. 34367 of 2024

¶34

(iii) He contends that during March, 2024, he was under treatment for displacement of his vertebral L4 and L5, and was advised to take rest and therefore, he could not attend to duty. He contends that on 09.10.2024 he approached the respondent No.5 to explain the circumstances under which, he could not

¶35

attend to duty and requested to transfer him to Bengaluru. However, the respondent No.5 threatened that the petitioner would be terminated, if he did not immediately tender his resignation on HRMS portal at Bank. Consequently, the petitioner uploaded his resignation on 09.10.2024. Thereafter, before the respondents could accept his resignation, he approached the Canara Bank Staff Federation and along with General Secretary of the Canara Bank Staff Federation, he met the respondent No.2 and explained the circumstances, under which, he was forced to submit his resignation and expressed his desire to resume duties. The respondent No.2 purportedly assured to consider the case of the petitioner favourably and instructed him to rejoin the duty.

¶36

(iv) On 07.11.2024, he therefore visited the branch at Periyapatna. However, he was not permitted to resume duty. The petitioner therefore submitted a letter explaining the

¶37

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:15825 WP No. 34367 of 2024

¶38

reasons for his absence and also informed the respondent No.5 that he was eager to attend to work. Since he was not given access to the system, he could not upload his request for withdrawal of his resignation letter before it was accepted. On the same day, he submitted a letter dated 07.11.2024 expressing his desire to report back to work and also informed the respondent No.5 that he had completed his biometric login and met the branch manager. The respondents without considering the request of the petitioner, addressed a letter dated 08.11.2024 which was served on the petitioner, whereby the resignation submitted by him on 09.10.2024 was accepted with effect from 11.11.2024. The petitioner thereafter submitted a representation dated 11.11.2024 again requesting the respondents to permit him to report to duty. However, the respondent No.4 in terms of a letter dated 11.11.2024 informed the petitioner that his resignation was accepted and communicated on 08.11.2024 and therefore the request for withdrawal of his resignation was not considered. Following this the petitioner sent emails dated 14.11.2024 attaching therewith a copy of the letter dated 12.11.2024 for withdrawal of his resignation.

¶39

6 -

¶40

NC: 2025:KHC:15825 WP No. 34367 of 2024

¶41

(v) He contends that he had raised a housing loan from the respondent No.1/bank which had an outstanding of Rs.68,00,000/-. But the respondent No.6 had emailed on 25.10.2024 and 05.11.2024 that in view of his resignation, the staff housing loan would be converted to general housing loan. Thereafter, by letter dated 12.11.2024, the respondent No.4 informed the petitioner that he has to repay the principal amount of Rs.68,14,530/- plus applicable interest. It was also informed that as per the manual on housing loan, if an employee ceases to be in service of bank, the entire outstanding liability shall become immediately payable if no permission is obtained to continue the liability. In response, the petitioner replied on 18.11.2024 placing on record the earlier events, leading upto the withdrawal of the resignation. Since the request of the petitioner is not considered, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶42

(i) The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that as per the guidelines issued by the respondent No.1 - bank, relating to resignation, the petitioner was first required to send an unconditional letter in a specified format addressed to the competent authority indicating his desire to

¶43

7 -

¶44

NC: 2025:KHC:15825 WP No. 34367 of 2024

¶45

resign. Thereafter, the application would be forwarded by the branch. On receipt of the application, the concerned HRM section shall process such application and the decision of the competent authority will be communicated to the employee well in advance before the expiry date of the notice period. The notice period as mentioned in the Annexure - II of the guidelines regarding voluntary retirement scheme and resignation for workmen employees, is one month. Therefore, the petitioner was entitled to withdraw the resignation before one month from the date of submission.

¶46

(ii) She contends that the petitioner was entitled to withdraw the resignation before the acceptance of the resignation was communicated to the petitioner. In the instant case, she submits that the petitioner met the Assistant General Manager of the respondents along with the secretary of Canara Bank Staff Federation and that he assured to accept back the services of the petitioner and directed him to report to duty. She contends that accordingly the petitioner reported to duty on 07.11.2024 at 09:50 a.m. and logged in the biometric system. However, he was not allowed access into the office and

¶47

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:15825 WP No. 34367 of 2024

¶48

was not permitted to upload his request for withdrawal of the resignation.

¶49

(iii) She contends that the petitioner was therefore forced to submit a representation on 07.11.2024 itself indicating his desire to report back to duty meaning thereby that he had withdrawn his resignation. She contends that the resignation was thereafter accepted but communicated on 08.11.2024. Thus, she contends that before acceptance of the resignation was communicated, the petitioner had withdrawn the resignation and therefore, the respondent No.5 was bound to escalate it to the competent authority through the proper channel and it was for the competent authority to decide acceptance of the resignation or not. Besides, she contends that resignation was accepted with effect from 11.11.2024 meaning thereby that the petitioner is deemed to be on duty till 11.11.2024 and since the resignation was withdrawn before that date, the petitioner is entitled to continue in service.

¶50

(i) The petition is opposed by the respondents

¶51

who contend that after the petitioner reported to duty, he remained unauthorisedly absent from 29.03.2024. As per the

¶52

9 -

¶53

NC: 2025:KHC:15825 WP No. 34367 of 2024

¶54

VIII bipartite settlement, with the employees union on 02.06.2005, the bank issued circular No.157/2005 specifying the terms of voluntary cessation of employment. As per the said circular, if an employee absented himself from work, for a period of 90 or more consecutive days, without prior sanction from the competent authority, the management at any time thereafter, could give a notice to the employee at his last known address as recorded, calling upon him to report to work. Accordingly, a notice was issued to the petitioner on 27.06.2024 calling upon him to report back to work at the branch. However, the notice returned un-served with an endorsement "addressee left". Thereafter second notice was issued to him on 08.08.2024 which was also not delivered. As a final reminder, 3^rd notice was sent to him on 09.09.2024 in terms of H.O. Circular No.157/2005 for voluntary cessation of employment to which the petitioner responded and informed orally that he was willing to resign from services of the bank.

¶55

(ii) It is contended that the petitioner voluntarily submitted his resignation on 09.10.2024 and the competent authority accepted the resignation and communicated the same vide proceedings dated 07.11.2024 which was acknowledged

¶56

10 -

¶57

NC: 2025:KHC:15825 WP No. 34367 of 2024

¶58

by the petitioner on 08.11.2024. It is contended that the petitioner vide his letter dated 11.11.2024 requested for withdrawal of his resignation and the same was not considered by the competent authority, as once the resignation was accepted, there was no question of revisiting it.

¶59

(iii) It is contended that the petitioner has neither closed the loan nor informed his decision regarding conversion of staff loan to a general loan and therefore a letter dated 12.11.2024 was issued to him to proceed as per Clause 1.16 of the housing loan manual. Therefore, it is contended that the petitioner cannot now claim that he is entitled to withdraw the resignation. In support of his contention, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Union of India - AIR 1969 SC 180 where it was held that when once the resignation is accepted, it will not be open for the petitioner to withdraw his resignation after the same is accepted by the competent authority. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Air India Express Limited and Ors. Vs. Captain Gurdarshan Kaur Sandhu - (2019) 17 SCC 129 which is also to the same effect.

¶60

11 -

¶61

NC: 2025:KHC:15825 WP No. 34367 of 2024

¶62

The learned counsel for the respondents reiterated the above contentions and submitted that the respondents continuously followed up to pursue the petitioner to report back to duty but the petitioner voluntarily submitted his resignation and there was no force or compulsion to submit it. He contends

¶63

that since the resignation was accepted by the competent authority on 07.11.2024 and communicated to the petitioner on 08.11.2024, there is no question of allowing the petitioner to withdraw his resignation on 11.11.2024.

¶64

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶65

It appears that the petitioner took voluntary retirement from Indian Air Force on 30.06.2021 in order to attend to his mother who was ailing. Thereafter, he joined the services of the respondent on 05.12.2022 and reported to work at Canara Bank, Periyapatna branch on 17.12.2022. The petitioner claimed that his mother was unwell and therefore, he could not attend to his duty. He claimed, due to various circumstances beyond his control, he was compelled to submit

¶66

12 -

¶67

NC: 2025:KHC:15825 WP No. 34367 of 2024

¶68

his resignation on 09.10.2024. This Court is not voyaging into the question whether the reasons given by the petitioner for abstaining from duty was genuine or not. As per the prevalent guidelines relating to resignation of employees, the employee was bound to give a notice period before submitting his resignation and the same reads as follows:

¶69

" Notice Period:

¶70

The eligible employees can resign from the services of the Bank by giving notice period of not less than 1 month in writing to the Competent Authority in case of confirmed employees and 14 days in case of Probationary Workmen employees.

¶71

In case, the employee requests for leave during the notice period, the same may be examined by the Deputy General Manager at Circle and in respect of workmen employees working at Head Office - Assistant General Manager, Human Resources Wing, Head Office, Bengaluru.

¶72

Counseling shall be done before accepting the application of the employee for Resignation."

¶73

The manner to apply for resignation is also contained

¶74

therein and the same reads as follows:

¶75

13 - NC: 2025:KHC:15825 WP No. 34367 of 2024

¶76

" How to apply:

¶77

The eligible employees who desire to seek Resignation have to send an unconditional letter in the specified format and the same shall be addressed to the Competent Authority. The application in the format shall be forwarded by the branch / office where the employee is working. On receipt of the application for Resignation from the employee, branch / office shall verify the details furnished by the employee and forward the same to the concerned HRM Section / Staff Administration Section / HOSA Section as per the specified format. The concerned HRM section shall process such application and the decision of the Competent Authority will be communicated to the employee well in advance before the expiry date of the notice period. The decision of the Competent Authority shall be final in the matter."

¶78

A perusal of the above guidelines makes it more than clear that the respondents were bound to counsel the employees before accepting their application for resignation. If the employee persists to resign from the services, the employer is entitled to accept the resignation within 30 days from the date of submission and is bound to communicate the same to the employee well in advance before the expiry of the notice period. In the case on hand, the petitioner submitted his

¶79

14 -

¶80

NC: 2025:KHC:15825 WP No. 34367 of 2024

¶81

resignation on 09.10.2024. He visited the branch along with the General Secretary of Canara Bank Staff Federation on 05.11.2024 which is not seriously disputed by the respondents/bank. He also visited the bank on 07.11.2024 and logged in the biometric system which is also not seriously disputed by the bank. However, he was not allowed access into the bank, in view of the resignation letter submitted by him and no access was granted to him to make a request online for withdrawal of his resignation. The petitioner submitted a letter dated 07.11.2024 to the Assistant General Manager through Bank Manager indicating his desire to report back to duty meaning thereby that he had withdrawn his resignation. It therefore, appears that before the resignation was accepted and communicated by the respondents, the petitioner had withdrawn his resignation. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondents, an employee is not entitled to withdraw his resignation once it is accepted. However in the instant case, the petitioner had made it clear that he intended to report back to the duty on 07.11.2024 itself, i.e., before acceptance of the resignation was communicated to the petitioner. Therefore, the respondents were duty bound to

¶82

15 -

¶83

NC: 2025:KHC:15825 WP No. 34367 of 2024

¶84

escalate the request of the petitioner before the competent authority, so that the competent authority could decide regarding the acceptance of the resignation.

¶85

A perusal of the order dated 07.11.2024 accepting the resignation of the petitioner shows that the request of the petitioner dated 07.11.2024 was never escalated to the competent authority and there was no application of mind to the request dated 07.11.2024. Therefore, it can safely be said that the petitioner had withdrawn his resignation before the same was communicated to him on 08.11.2024.

¶86

Under the circumstances, the impugned order passed by the respondents accepting the resignation of the petitioner with effect from 11.11.2024 is bound to be quashed.

¶87

As a result, the petition is allowed . The impugned order dated 07.11.2024 accepting the resignation of the petitioner is quashed. The respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to report back to duty within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As a consequence, the letter bearing No.HRMLROMYSRL:839476:2024 dated 12.11.2024 issued by the respondent No.4 shall not be given

¶88

16 -

¶89

NC: 2025:KHC:15825 WP No. 34367 of 2024

¶90

effect to. It is however open for the respondents to take necessary action against the petitioner for his unauthorised absence and it is open for the petitioner to justify his absence.

¶91

Pending interlocutory applications, do not survive for consideration and the same stand disposed off.

Sd/-

(R. NATARAJ)

JUDGE

HJ

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16

R K Bharat Krishna v. Canara Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R K Bharat Krishna v. Canara Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr Mayanna Gowda Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. H. Rebecca Nesamani Vs the Government of Karnataka

Kumari Sangeetha T R Vs Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation

C L Jayram Vs State Represented by Lokayukta

Sri Chethan Krishna Vs All India Council for Technical Education

Sathish Kumar S T Vs Union of India