Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that all the notices as stated by the inquiry officer in his inquiry report had been served on the petitioner by the modes as permitted under law. Learned counsel submitted that even prior to initiation of the inquiry proceedings, several notices which are available on record, were served on the petitioner but the petitioner specifically stated that as he has already applied for voluntary retirement, the same may be accepted. So far as his absence from duties is concerned, his absence was willful which is clear from the fact that the petitioner was absent from his duties since 02.02.2007 whereas he was transferred on 26.02.2007. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that he applied for voluntary retirement only because of his transfer order. Learned counsel further submitted that in the inquiry proceedings, an officer to plead on behalf of the Bank before the inquiry officer was appointed who placed all the relevant documents before the inquiry officer which were considered by him and on the basis of the documents as submitted, the inquiry officer reached to the conclusion and therefore, the inquiry report as submitted by the inquiry officer is perfectly in terms of law.
