Chandra Mohan Das Vs Canara Bank, Head Office, Bangalore

1. The above named Petitioner, who is an officer of Canara Bank and who has already rendered 35 years of uninterrupted service at the Bank, has approached this Court by filing the present writ application with a prayer to quash the rejection order dated 31.05.2024 and 02.12.2024 under Annexures-5 & 6 respectively. Further, he has also prayed for a direction to the

¶16

Page 1 of 15

¶17

Opposite Parties to accept the voluntary retirement of the Petitioner from service and for a further direction for payment of arrear salaries from January, 2024 till the date of acceptance of his voluntary retirement and for payment of other post-retirement benefits including the pensionary benefits, as is due and admissible, within a stipulated period of time along with interests on delayed payment of such service benefits. The factual background leading to filing of the present writ application, in a narrow compass is that the Petitioner entered into the service of Opposite Party-Bank on 18.11.1989. As such, he has rendered 35 completed years of service. Before the events central to the issue in the present writ petition transpired, the Petitioner was last posted as Senior Manager, Canara Bank, Baripada Branch. A perusal of the background facts of the writ petition further reveals that while working as a Senior Manager, in January 2023, the Petitioner suffered an acute brain stroke and he was hospitalized thereafter. Such hospitalization includes the treatment of the Petitioner as an ICU patient from 09.01.2023 to 20.03.2023. Thereafter, the Petitioner was shifted to SUM Ultimate Medicare Hospital in Bhubaneswar where he underwent treatment as a neuro patient in the Department of Neurosurgery. Finally, the

¶18

Page 2 of 15

¶19

Petitioner was discharged from SUM Ultimate Medicare Hospital, Bhubaneswar on 28.03.2023 with a medical advice to undergo rehabilitation and physiotherapy care for two to three months. Accordingly, the Petitioner was admitted to a physiotherapy hospital in Bhubaneswar and remained under treatment till 02.04.2024. Due to financial constraint and on the request of the family members, the Petitioner was discharged from the hospital and was undergoing physiotherapy treatment at his residence. Even now the Petitioner has not fully recovered and spends a considerable amount of his time bedridden.

¶20

2. The current medical condition of the Petitioner is such that he is unable to even sign his own name and he is also unable to perform his daily activities without any assistance from his family members. In fact, the Petitioner was unable to put his signature on the Vakalatnama, as a result of which the writ application has been filed with the thumb impression of the Petitioner, duly attested by his wife, Smt. Haridra Das.

¶21

3. Since the health condition of the Petitioner did not permit him to discharge his official duties that he was performing earlier, the Petitioner decided to take voluntary retirement from service.

¶22

Page 3 of 15

¶23

On enquiry, the Petitioner came to know that the Bank has circulated a guideline for submission of VR/Resignation Application by an Officer/Employee of the Bank. As per the said guidelines, an Officer shall not leave or discontinue his/her service in the Bank without giving a notice in writing of his intention to leave or discontinue his service or resign. The period of notice as prescribed in the guidelines is three months and the same shall be submitted to the competent authority with liberty to the competent authority to reduce the notice period or remit the requirement of notice. Clause-3 of the aforesaid guideline provides that on receipt of an application, the Bank authorities shall ascertain from the officer/employee the reason for submission of VR/Resignation Application and invariably counsel the officer before accepting the application.

¶24

4. Since the Petitioner remained on leave for a long period on medical grounds by submitting leave application, he has exhausted his casual leave/sick leave as is permissible under the Rules. Since the Petitioner has not joined in duty from January 2023, he has not been paid his salary from January 2024. Due to non-payment of his salary since January 2024, in addition to the expenses incurred for his treatment, the Petitioner has completely

¶25

Page 4 of 15

¶26

eroded all his savings and as such the Petitioner’s entire family has been going through a period of financial crisis. Owing to the aforesaid financial condition, as well as the health condition of the Petitioner, the family members of the Petitioner decided that the Petitioner should take voluntary retirement from service as he is unable to attend office work. Accordingly, with the help of the family members the Petitioner submitted his VR Application on 17.11.2023, to the Regional Manager Canara Bank, Bhadrak.

¶27

5. As has been stated hereinabove, since the Petitioner who is suffering from paralysis, due to the brain stroke he suffered, the petitioner was unable to put his signature on the application and such application was submitted under the signature of his wife and children. The competent authority, after keeping the application pending for a long period of near about six months, finally rejected the application of the Petitioner seeking voluntary retirement from service, without assigning any reason whatsoever, on 31.05.2024. The Petitioner was only intimated that in the event he seeks voluntary retirement then he has to submit his application afresh by giving requisite notice of three months. On 02.12.2024, the very same authority once again issued another rejection order mentioning the very same ground

¶28

Page 5 of 15

¶29

as the one that had been stated in the earlier rejection order dated 31.05.2024. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid two orders dated 31.05.2024 and 02.12.2024, under Annexures-5 & 6 respectively, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ application.

¶30

6. Mr. Sidheswar Mallik, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, at the outset pleaded that the health condition of the Petitioner is very critical and he is confined to his bed. As such, the Petitioner is unable to put his signature on any application or document for that matter. To further substantiate his contention with regard to the deteriorated health condition of the present Petitioner, the learned counsel referred to the doctor’s certificate dated 12.12.2024, wherein the health condition of the Petitioner has been stated. Such certificate reveals that the Petitioner is unable to work or perform his daily activities and that the patient is in a complete bed-ridden condition and he is unable to even make or put down a signature on his own. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that from the date the Petitioner suffered the brain stroke, even though the Petitioner has survived, his health condition has not improved in any substantial measure and his whole body continues to remain paralysed. Thus,

¶31

Page 6 of 15

¶32

the wife of the Petitioner has submitted the application seeking voluntary retirement. On such ground, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that since the wife of the Petitioner is taking his care and she is legally entitled to represent the Petitioner and act on his behalf, the Bank Authority should not have insisted upon appointment of any co-guardian. He further argued that the wife being a Class-1 legal heir, can act on behalf of her husband and execute necessary papers representing the Husband. He further contended that the health condition of the Petitioner is such that a huge amount of money is being spent for the treatment of the Petitioner and to keep him alive. Moreover, since the Petitioner has already availed all the leave available to his credit, the Petitioner is not being paid his salary from January 2024. Moreover, all his savings having been spent on his treatment, the whole family of the Petitioner has now fallen into extreme economic adversity and they are unable to meet the treatment expenses of the Petitioner any further. Such condition compelled the Petitioner’s family members to submit the VR Application so that the Petitioner can avail his retirement benefits as well as the

¶33

pensionary benefits as is due and admissible to him. He further contended that the inaction on the part of the Opposite Parties in

¶34

Page 7 of 15

¶35

not accepting the VR Application and in not sanctioning and disbursing the financial benefits as is due and admissible to the Petitioner, has led to the Petitioner and his family members being seriously prejudiced and there exists a risk to the life of the Petitioner as the family members are not in a position to continue with the treatment of the petitioner. Under such compelling circumstances, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

¶36

7. Mr. S. Pradhan, learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Party No.4, on the other hand, expresses the sympathy of the Bank towards the Petitioner’s plight. However, he further contended that the Opposite Parties have not committed any illegality in passing the orders under Annexure-5 & 6. Further, referring to the guidelines of the Bank for submission of VR/Resignation Application by an Officer/Employee, Mr. Pradhan submitted that common conditions are applicable to both voluntary retirement and resignation of employees. The first condition as per the guidelines under Annexure-3 is that the officer/employee desirous of seeking voluntary retirement should

¶37

give advance notice of not less than three months to the competent authority. He further contended that once such

¶38

Page 8 of 15

¶39

application is submitted by the officer/employee, the concerned authorities are to ascertain from the officer/employee the reason for submission of voluntary retirement application and invariably counsel the officer/employee before accepting/forwarding the application. Further, drawing attention of this Court to clause-7 (III) of the guidelines under Annexure-3, learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party-Bank submitted that the applications which are either incorrect or incomplete are liable to be rejected by the Bank.

¶40

8. Mr. Pradhan, learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.4 further contended that the application seeking VR dated 17.11.2023, under Annexure-4, has been submitted by the wife and children of the officer/employee. Therefore, the same is not in terms of the guidelines under Annexure-3 since as per the applicable guidelines it is the office/employee who has to submit an application seeking for either voluntary retirement or resignation. As such, Mr. Pradhan further contended that the application submitted on behalf of the Petitioner is incomplete and therefore the Opposite Party-Bank has not committed any illegality in rejecting such application vide the letter dated 31.05.2024 under Annexure-5 and letter dated 02.12.2024 under

¶41

Page 9 of 15

¶42

Annexure-6 to the writ application. In such view of the matter, Mr. Pradhan further contended that the writ application is devoid of merit and accordingly the same should be dismissed.

¶43

9. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, on a careful analysis of the arguments advanced before this Court, further on a careful scrutiny of the pleadings in the writ application and the documents annexed thereto, this Court observes that there is no dispute with regard to the factual aspect of the present writ petition. Moreover, on a close scrutiny of the rejection orders under Annexure-5 & 6 it is evident that the application of the Petitioner seeking voluntary retirement has been declined by the competent authority of the Opposite Party-Bank. The Petitioner has been advised to make a fresh application seeking voluntary retirement, in the event the Petitioner is so advised, after giving requisite notice of a period of three months. Thus, it is clear from the rejection orders under Annexure-5 & 6 that the competent authority has not assigned any reason whatsoever while rejecting the VR Application of the Petitioner which was submitted through his wife and children. In such view of the matter, this Court has no hesitation in coming to

¶44

a conclusion that the impugned rejection orders under Annexure-5

¶45

Page 10 of 15

¶46

& 6 are bad in law on the sole ground that the same do not contain any valid reason whatsoever for rejection of the Voluntary Retirement application of the Petitioner. Moreover, this Court, on a careful analysis of the factual background of the present case and keeping in view the certificate of the Doctor annexed to the writ application as Annexure-7, is of the view that undoubtedly the Petitioner had initially suffered a brain stroke and thereafter he has been confined to bed due to the paralysis caused by such brain stroke. It is also evident that the Petitioner was in the rehab and physiotherapy centre from 28.03.2023 to 02.04.2024. Such medical report further clearly indicates that the patient is unable to work and perform his day-to-day activities of daily living, although, the response of the Petitioner to commands are intact and well-recognized. Such medical certificate further reveals that the Petitioner is completely bed-ridden and that he is unable to affix his signature on his own. Since the medical certificate under Annexure-7 has not been disputed by the Bank, this court has no reason to disbelieve such certificate. Accordingly, this Court holds that the Petitioner had suffered a brain stroke for which he was hospitalised, thereafter, the

¶47

Page 11 of 15

¶48

Petitioner has been suffering from paralysis and he is completely bed-ridden and as such he is unable to sign with his own effort.

¶49

10. So far as the guidelines under Annexure-3 are concerned,

¶50

it is found that they have been issued by Canara Bank for submission of VR/Resignation Application by an officer/employee. The above factual aspect has not been disputed by the counsel appearing for the Bank. The said guidelines also refer to Regulation-20(2) of CBOSR, 1979, which provides that an officer shall not leave or discontinue his/her service in the Bank without first giving a notice in writing of his/her intention to leave or discontinue his/her service or resign. The notice period that is required has been stipulated to be a period of three months and it is to be submitted to the competent authority as prescribed in the aforesaid Regulation. Provided further, that the competent authority is also empowered to reduce the notice period of three months or remit the requirement of notice. Further, taking note of various circulars laying down the guidelines, the circular dated 24.04.2023 under Annexure-3 has been issued by the Bank.

¶51

11. On a reading of the aforesaid circular under Annexure-3,

¶52

it is observed that an officer/employee can submit

¶53

Page 12 of 15

¶54

VR/Resignation Application after giving three months’ advance notice. However, such notice period is liable to be either reduced or remitted by the competent authority. Learned counsel for the Bank does not have any objection with regard to the other conditions as the application submitted on behalf of the Petitioner is compliant with the other conditions. The only objection that has been taken in the rejection letters as well as by the counsel for the Opposite Party No.4 is that the application of voluntary retirement is incomplete since it has not been signed by the Petitioner himself. With regard to the notice period, this Court observes that such notice period can very well be waived by the competent authority. Therefore, the same is not mandatory in nature. In appropriate cases the competent authority, while exercising its power under Regulation-20(2), can very well remit the notice period. Therefore, the only issue that remains to be adjudicated at this stage is as to whether the application submitted by the wife and children of the Petitioner is an invalid application. On a careful consideration of the factual background of the present case, further taking note of the medical certificate, this court is of the considered view that the Petitioner is completely bed-ridden and he is unable to even affix his own signature. Thus, the

¶55

Page 13 of 15

¶56

Petitioner could not have submitted the application seeking voluntary retirement. Moreover, it is also a fact that the wife and children of the Petitioner require funds to continue the treatment of the Petitioner as all their funds have already been exhausted in the prolonged process of the Petitioner’s treatment. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and the greater interest of justice, this Court has no hesitation in coming to a conclusion that the impugned rejection letters under Annexure-5 & 6 are unsustainable in law. Accordingly, the rejection orders dated 31.05.2024 under Annexure-5 and dated 02.12.2024 under Annexure-6 are hereby quashed. Further, while allowing the present writ application, this Court directs the competent authority of the Bank to remit the requirement of notice period as has been provided in the circular dated 24.04.2023 under Annexure-3. Further, the application under Annexure-4 submitted by the wife and children, who are the class-I legal heirs of the Petitioner, be accepted as a valid application in the facts and circumstances of the present case and the same be processed in terms of the circular under Annexure-3 within a period of two weeks from the date of communication of a certified copy of today’s order by the present Petitioner. It is further directed that

¶57

Page 14 of 15

¶58

upon acceptance of the application for Voluntary Retirement in terms of Annexure-3 to writ application, the Opposite Party shall do well to calculate all outstanding dues, including the arrears, the pension, gratuity etc. as is due and admissible to the Petitioner, and disburse the same in favour of the Petitioner, subject to the other legal heirs giving their consent for such disbursement in favour of the Petitioner in the shape of an affidavit, within a period of two weeks from the date of taking such decision. It is further directed that the release of the financial benefits in favour of the Petitioner shall also be subject to the Petitioner furnishing an indemnity bond in favour of the Opposite Party-Bank to such extent as would be indicated by the Bank authorities after due calculation of the financial benefits as is due and admissible to the Petitioner.

¶59

12. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ petition stands allowed.

¶60

(Aditya Kumar Mohapatra) Judge

¶61

Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 7^th March, 2025/ S.K. Rout, Jr. Stenographer

¶62

Signature Not Verified

¶63

Digitally Signed Signed by: SANTANU KUMAR ROUT Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 07-Mar-2025 14:03:02

¶64

Page 15 of 15

Chandra Mohan Das v. Canara Bank, Head Office, Bangalore

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandra Mohan Das v. Canara Bank, Head Office, Bangalore

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Udayanath Sahoo Vs Priyabrata Panda

Pravanjan Behera Vs the Chairman Odisha Gramya Bank

Santosh Behera Vs State of Odisha

Niroj Meher Vs Anya Das,Ias

Jagannath Kar Vs Deo Ranjan Kumar Singh, IAS

Dolagobinda Dash Vs Deoranjan Kumar Singh,Ias