The protagonist in this story was a Manager with the Union Bank of India. He was dismissed on the grounds of not reporting to work for a long time i.e from 3.6.1997 to 23.11.1997 . It was further alleged that the said Manager was under orders of transfer from Mumbai to Chennai and instead of carrying out the same, he remained absent without sanction of leave. By doing so, the Manager had allegedly violated Regulation 13 of the Union Bank of India Officer Employee (Conduct) Regulations, 1976, which requires that "no officer/employee should absent himself in case of sickness or accident without submitting a proper medical certificate". The Bank's Staff Circular dated 2.6.1981 also provides that "the Management is not bound by the certificate produced by the employee and may require him to appear before the Medical Practitioner of Bank's choice for medical examination."

The Inquiring Authority came to the conclusion that the real reason of such unauthorized absence was that the Manager was reluctant to carry out his transfer to Chennai.

The Disciplinary Authority held the Manager guilty of the following misconducts:

a) Contravention of Regulation 13 of the Union Bank of India Officer Employees" (Conduct) Regulations, 1976.

b) Failure to discharge his duties with devotion and diligence.

c) Acting in a manner unbecoming of a Bank officer.

Result - Dismissal from service !!!! One may be compelled to say that the action meted out prima facie appeared 'harsh' . After all, our protagonist had put in seventeen long years of service with the Bank. And his absence from service was only for about six months !!!

So , it was appeal time . The Appellate Authority did not find any reasons warranting sympathy and held

a) that it is the conduct of the petitioner "taking undue advantage of his normal sickness to avoid transfer to the extent possible", which was "not genuine".

b) that "his sickness" was not such where he could "not attend his normal office duties".

The writing was on the wall, but still it was over to the High Court . It was held therein that "the Manager was adamant in not carrying out the transfer order and tried his best to avoid transfer until he finally failed upto this Court in challenging his transfer from Mumbai to Chennai". No reprieve again.

Finally the Apex Court :- The finding of the High Court was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the ground that the same is contrary to the opinion/recommendations of the medical experts as regards to the Manager's illness. And detailed examination, the Hon'ble Apex Court dismissed the appeal and held that

• We are of the opinion that the appellant is not entitled to any relief in these proceedings.

• The conduct of the appellant in remaining absent for such a long time shows that he was bent upon to evade the transfer order in any possible manner.

• The grounds of ailment were taken as a ruse to avoid transfer which is amply proved by the conduct of the appellant, when he had unauthorisedly remained absent on the ground that he was unable to attend the duty due to illness for such a long but he was quite capable of attending the court proceedings on the various days and was also capable of coming to Delhi to file a petition before this Court.

• The concurrent finding of the enquiry is that he has been shifting stands because initially on the very day of the service of the transfer order he gave a representation mentioning illness of his wife and the studies of his son for the purpose of deferment of the transfer to Chennai from Mumbai. But in the other representation to other Officer of the Bank, which he has produced to the Bank, he has stated the reason of his illness as an excuse. Thus, the conduct of the appellant in trotting up all these defenses show that he was trying to avoid transfer to Chennai through all possible means.

• The service of specialist officers and for that matter all officers in the Bank are transferable on all India basis and they are liable to the posted anywhere in India subject to the personnel and manpower requirement and exigencies of the Bank.

• In this case the High Court in the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has again gone into all aspects of the enquiry in detail and has come to the same factual finding as the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority.

• Such concurrent findings by three different Authorities including the High Court should not be disturbed by this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

The Apex Court also reiterated that the factual finding of the Disciplinary Authority after holding a detailed enquiry and after going through elaborate evidence was not assailable in the courts unless the breach of principles of natural justice or the violation of any rules or any material irregularity on the face of record is alleged and shown.

Try, Try and you will succeed :- Inspite of the order of dismissal, the appellant in an Affidavit of Undertaking before the Hon'ble Apex Court during the time of hearing of the appeal, submitted that he was ready to forgo the entire back wages and was ready to join duty at the place where he was posted. He requested that he might be reinstated in service. An alternative plea was made wherein it was prayed that if the Bank was not willing to consider his request for reinstatement on sympathetic grounds, they may be advised to pay some lumpsum payment to him. The Bank was not willing to reinstate the appellant but however was ready and willing to abide by any further direction of the Hon'ble Apex Court, in regard to the above proposal. After an comprehensive analysis on the merits of this plea, Apex Court, with the need to give quietus to this long standing litigation, directed the Bank to pay to the appellant by Demand Draft a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards full and final settlement of all claims between both the parties.

Before parting :

An adage goes this way "A good rest is half the job" - Well , in this case the ' rest' cost the gentleman his 'job' --- May our central character was not privy to Finagle's Fourth Law which says " Once a job is fouled up , anything done to improve it only makes it worse" . On a serious note, the total number of unemployed persons in India was estimated to be about 35 million in the year 2002. Four years down the line, this estimation and reality thereof, must definitely have rocketed - In such a scenario, is it worth all the flimsy excuses and stunts , only to lose your job and add to such estimation ? Definitely not !!!

(See 2006-HRIOL-09-CIC )