Holding

The appeal is dismissed; the termination order is quashed because the required notice was not properly served, and the employee is entitled to continuity of service.

Summary

Vijay Krishna Neema, employed by the Central Bank of India since 1973, took leave in 1986 and failed to report back, despite several memos and a show‑cause notice. The bank invoked Clause 16 of the Shastri Award, a bipartite settlement, to deem him to have voluntarily retired and terminated his service. Neema changed his residential address, but the bank did not serve the required notice by registered post with acknowledgment, nor did it attempt personal service, violating the principles of natural justice. The Madhya Pradesh High Court quashed the termination, held that 236 days of leave were creditable, and reinstated Neema with continuity of service. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined the validity of Clause 16, the mode of notice required, and whether the Court could intervene under Article 136. It found that the bank had not proved service of notice, that the High Court’s factual finding was correct, and that a limited enquiry sufficed to satisfy natural‑justice requirements. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the High Court’s order reinstating the employee was upheld.

Issues considered

The applicability and validity of Clause 16 of the Shastri Award in terminating employment.
Whether service of notice to an absent employee must be effected by registered post with acknowledgment as per the award.
Whether the failure to serve such notice violates the principles of natural justice.
Whether the Supreme Court can entertain the appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution.
Whether the employee is deemed to have voluntarily retired in the absence of a properly served notice.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 136

Subjects

service lawabandonment of serviceShastri Awardnatural justicenotice by registered postArticle 136continuity of serviceemployee termination

Judgment

[2009] 5 S.C.R. 645
-,.
THE REGIONAL MANAGER, CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA A
-r v.
VIJAY KRISHNA NEEMA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 2242 of 2009)
APRIL 8, 2009
~ B
[S.B. SINHA AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.]

Service law: Clause 16 of Shastri Award -Absence from
duty -Notice to employee to report for duty - Requirement of
- Held: In case of absent employee, notice is required to be c
served by registered post with acknowledgment due - On
facts, there is nothing to show that the fact of change of
address of employee was not known to employer- High Court
..- arrived at a finding offact that notice was not served upon him
and since he had in his credit 236 days leave, he was entitled D
to continuity of service - In the facts and circumstances of the
case, interference under Article 136 of the Constitution not
called for - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 136.
The Respondent was employed in appellant-Bank.
E
He took extension of leave without permission. Two
memos were issued which were returned to bank with an
l' endorsement 'refused'. As he did not join duty, show
cause notice was issued as to why disciplinary
-~ proceeding be not initiated against him. Respondent filed
a representation upon receipt of the said notice. F
Respondent was however informed that he had ceased
to be in employment of bank having voluntarily
abandoned the service. Respondent filed appeal which
was dismissed on the ground that the termination of
service was in accordance with the provisions of Bipartite G
~ ~
settlement (Shastri Award) and there was no violation of
rules of natural justice. Respondent filed Writ Petition
before High Court. It held that the appellant had in his
credit 236 days leave; that respondent had submitted an
645 H
646 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 5 S.C.R.

A application for change of address, however, bank did not
sent notice on this address, nor tried to serve the notice
personally on him and therefore the rules of natural
justice were not complied with and thus respondent was
entitled to continuity of service. Hence the appeal.
B
Dismissing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1.1. An employee may, in certain situations,
abandon or deemed to have abandoned his job. What
constitutes abandonment may· be a matter of a statutory
c provision or agreement between the employer and the
Union. Although absence without leave for a long time
may constitute a grave misconduct on the part of the
employee concerned, in a case of this nature, in view of
clause 16 of the Shastri Award, an employee can be
D treated
B]
to have ceased from employment. [Para 14] [656-
• '

Viveka Nand Sethi v. Chai1man, J & K Bank Ltd. (2005)
5 SCC 337; Punjab & Sind Bank & Ors. v. Sakattar Singh
2001 (1) SCC 214;Syndicate Bank v. General Secretary,
E
Syndicate Bank StaffAssociation and Anr. (2000) 5 SCC 65
and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Vipin Behari Lal
Srivastava (2008) 3 SCC 446, referred to.

1.2. Principle of natural justice, it is trite, does not
F operate irrespective of the statutory provisions. Clause
16 of the Shastri Award provides for issuance of such
notice. If despite service of notice the employee did not
report for duty, the consequences therefor would ensue.
[Para 15] [657-D, E]
G
Uptron India Ltd. v. Shammi Bhan & Anr. (1998) 6 SCC
538 and Scooters India Ltd. v. M. Mohd. Yaqub (2001) 1 SCC
61, referred to. \. ..
V.C., Banaras Hindu University & Ors. v. Shrikant (2006)
H
REGIONAL MANAGER, CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA v. 647
VIJAY KRISHNA NEEMA & ORS.
~

11 SCC 42 and D.K. Yadav v. JMA Industries Ltd. (1993) 3 A
sec 259, referred to.
1.3. In case of an absent employee notice was
required to be served by registered post with
acknowledgment due. The High Court arrived at a finding
---..Ii. B
of fact that notice, in fact, was not served upon him.
Appellant merely produced a photostat copy of the
envelop. There was nothing to show that the notice was
sent under registered cover with acknowledgment due.
Furthermore, there is nothing to show that the fact that
the respondent has changed his address was not known c
_.,,_
~
to the officers of the bank. The shifting of the residence
by the respondent was not denied. In fact, the
subsequent event, namely, filing of a suit for recovery of
amount of loan from the respondent clearly suggested
+- that officers of the appellant were aware of the D
respondent's changed address. Moreover, a concurrent
~ finding of fact in regard to the non-service of notice has
been arrived at. High Court furthermore gave liberty to
the appellant to give an opportunity of hearing to the
respondent. The respondent was working in the bank E
since 2004. In the facts and circumstances of this case,
it is not a fit case where this Court should exercise its
discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the
Constitution of India. [Para 16] [659-G, H; 660-A; 660-8-
... -t E] F
2. The appellant raised contention that the
respondent had started business in the name of Builders
and Brokers. The said fact was sought to prove from the
greeting cards sent to the officers of the bank on the
occasion of Diwali. Although the said plea was required G
to be taken into consideration by the High Court, it is not
1 necessary to go into the said question as in view of the
fact that the respondent has already been reinstated in

• service. [Para 17] [660-F]
H
-
648 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 5 S.C.R.
i
A U.P. State Bridge Corpn. Ltd. v. U.P. Rajya Setu Nigam
S. Karamchari Sangh (2004) 4 SCC 268, referred to.

Case Law Reference:

(2005) 5 sec 337 referred to Para 14
B
(2001 (1) sec 214
,,,.__~

referred to Para 14
(2000) 5 sec 65 1referred to Para 14
(2008) 3 sec 446 1referred to Para 14

c (1998) 6 sec 538 referred to Para 15 .>

(2001) 1 sec 61 referred to Para 15
(2006) 11 sec 42 referred to Para 15
(1993) 3 sec 259 referred to Para 15
D -.,..
(2004) 4 sec 268 referred to Para 15 ·

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. •'
2242 of 2009.

E From the Judgment & Order dated 16.10.2006 of the High
Court of Judicature at Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore in Writ
Petition No. 322 of 2006. -
F
Jaideep Gupta, Dinesh Mathur for the Appellants.
Saurabh Jain (for Rameshwar Prasad Goyal), Niraj
Sharma and Vikrant Singh for the Respondents.
+ '·
-
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
S.B. SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted.
G 2. Application of Clause 16 of the Shastri Award is in
question in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order
dated 16.10.2006 passed by a Division Bench of the High
Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore in Writ Appeal No.322 of
2006 whereby and whereunder a judgment and order dated
H 29.10.2004 passed by a learned Single Judge of the said
•
.., REGIONAL MANAGER, CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA v. 649
VIJAY KRISHNA NEEMA & ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.]
~
Court in writ petition No.521 of 2004 was affirmed. A

3. Respondent has admittedly been in employment of the
appellant bank since 1973. On or about 22.7.1986, he had
taken four days' leave upto 25.7.1986. He extended his leave
from 26.7.1986 to 1.8.1986. He neither joined his services nor
--._ _;,4, B
filed any further application for extension of leave.

Two memos dated 4/5.8.1986 and 18.8.1986 were issued.
A letter dated 13.10.1986 was thereafter issued which was
returned to the bank with an endorsement 'Refused'. The said
letter reads as under : c
"With Reference to our office letters dated 5.8.1986,
18.8.1986 requesting to submit proper leave application
and reasons of remaining absent from the Bank.

Mr. V.K. Neema has not submitted any application after D
-+
2.8.1986 and reasons of his remaining absent from the
duties.

Mr. V.K. Neema is hereby advised to report for duties
immediately and submit the reasons of his absence from E

.. the bank. Within three days, failing which disciplinary action
will be taken against him."

4. As he did not join his duties, a show-cause notice dated
9.2.1987 was issued as to why a disciplinary proceeding shall
_,. .. not be initiated against him, stating : F

"Attention of Shri V.K. Neema Clerk is drawn that he
applied for 4 days leave from 22.7.86 to 25.7.86 and
thereafter extended the leave for 26.7.86 to 1.8.86. After
expiry of the said period Shri V.K. Neema, neither reported G
for duty nor submitted any leave application for any reason
whatsoever.
-J
Vide our letters dated 5.8.86, 18.8.86 and 13.10.86 Mr.
I

"-., Neema was advised to report for duty immediately and to
submit the reasons of his absence from the bank within H
\
I

1
650 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 5 S.C.R.

A days Mr. V.K. Neema did not comply with the instruction
and he refused to accept our letter dated 13.10.1986 which
was sent at his residence address by Regd. Post.

In the circumstances, Bank has reason to believe that he
has no intention of continuing in the services of the Bank.
B
However, he is once again called upon to report for duty
at our Branch within 30 days of this letter and submit his
explanation for his unauthorized absence from 2.8.86. If he
fails to report for duty within the period stipulated above,
it will be deemed that he has voluntarily retires from the
c service of the Bank on the E~xpiry of said period of 30 days
and his name will be struck. off from the Rolls of the Bank,
and the bank will take suitaible action to recover its dues.'~

5. Respondent filed a representation upon receipt of the
D said notice. ,,_

6. By reason of an order dated 6.4.1987, respondent was
informed that he had ceased to be in the bank's employment
with effect from 9.3.1987 having voluntarily abandoned the
E service.

Indisputably, respondent had taken some loan from the
bank, he had shifted from 192, Jawahar Marg, Indore to 62,
Vandana Nagar, Indore. A recovery suit was filed by the bank
wherein the address of the re!spondent was stated as. 62,
t ~
F Vandana Nagar, Indore.

7. Respondent also preferred an appeal on 2.5.1987
against the said order dated 6.4.1987. He thereafter filed a writ
petition before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Indore
G Bench, Indore which was marked as W.P. 586 of 1988. By
reason of an order dated 22.4.1997, the said writ petition was
disposed of by the High Court, observing :

"However, it has not been disputed before me, that
Annexure-G, an appeal has not been disposed of by the
H Respondents in accordance with law. It has further not

(
REGIONAL MANAGER, CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA v. 651
VIJAY KRISHNA NEEMA & ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.]
been disputed that against the Order passed by A
Respondents (Annexure-A and E), an appeal would lie to
Zonal Manager in terms of clause 19.14 of the Bi-partite
Settlement."

The High Court opined: B
"Thus, on totality of the circumstances, as mentioned
above, I deem it fit to direct the Respondents to treat
Annexure-G/dt.2.5.1987, as an appeal, addressed to
Zonal Manager of Respondent No.1, in terms of Clause
19.14 of Bipartite Settlement, and direct the Respondent C
No.1 to place it before the Zonal Manager for deciding the
same in accordance with law on merits, as expeditiously
as may be possible. It is expected to the Respondents to
consider all points raised by Petitioner in Memo of Appeal
and that the same would be decided by a reasoned Order. D

In case Petitioner makes a prayer for personal hearing,
then, the same be also considered in the light of Rules and
Regulations applicable the service condition of Petitioner
and also in the light of peculiar facts and circumstances E
of the case."

8. Pursuant thereto or in furtherance thereof, the appellate
authority treated the appeal preferred before the Deputy
General Manager, Zonal Office, Bhopal as. a departmental
appeal. He was given an opportunity of hearing. The Appellate F
Authority by an order dated 24.10.1997 dismissed the said
appeal, opining :

"The contention of the applicant that all written
communications were determinately (sic) to the where he G
was not residing is not acceptable. From the fact that the
appellant has availed housing loan facility from the Bank,
it cannot be construed that he started residing there,
unless there was specific information to Bank about the
usage of house. Besides, the fact and reason of the letters H
652 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 5 S.C.R.

A were not accepted by him he was aware of various
communication intimation from the Branch.
The undersigned further observe that issuance of show
cause notice dated 9.2.87 by the Branch Manager was in
order having been issued in the capacity of administrative
B need. It does not therefore, amount to violation whatsoever.
The termination of the petitioner's service, it is observed,
was in accordance with the provisions of Bi-partite
settlement. As such, non-conduct of departmental authority
c does not vitiate the action taken thereto."
9. A second writ petition was filed by the respondent
questioning the legality and/or validity of the said order. By
reason of a judgment and order dated 29.10.2004, a learned
Single Judge of the said Court allowed the writ application,
0 inter alia, opinining :

"From the above factual position, it is clear that there was
a 236 days leave in the credit of the petitioner, it cannot
be inferred safely that the notice was served to the
E petitioner and he was afforded an opportunity of hearing
or submitting any explanation. It is further clear from the
facts that the petitioner had an explanation about his
absence on account of his ailment he had 236 days leave
in his credit. In such circumstances the rule of natural
F justice cannot be by-passed."
It was furthermore held :
"From the above discussion it is clear that the petitioner
has in his credit 236 days leave. He further has an
G explanation to put forth before the management with regard
to his ailment which was supported by the medical
certificate. He has also submitted an application for his
change of address 62, Vandana Nagar, Indore.
Admittedly, on this address the notice was not sent by the
H Bank. The Bank has not tried to serve the notice personally
REGIONAL MANAGER, CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA v. 653
VIJAY KRISHNA NEEMA & ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.]

to the petitioner. In such circumstances the rule of natural A
justice cannot be ruled out and it cannot be said and the
decision of the Bank with regard to abandonment of
service voluntarily has rightly been taken after compliance
of the rule of natural justice."
B
The writ petition was allowed, directing :

"The impugned order Annexure - P/5 dated 6.4.1987 by
which it is held that the petitioner ceased to be in Bank
employment with effect from 9.3.1987 and the appellate
order Annexure P/16 dated 24.10 .1997 are hereby C
quashed.

In consequence the petitioner be deemed to be in service
with the Bank. It is further made clear that the respondent
Bank is free to hold a departmental regular enquiry and o
pass appropriate order if it wishes so. The petitioner will
not be entitled for backwages in the facts and
circumstances of the case at present but will be entitled
for continuity of service. However, the respondent is free
to decide the question of backwages after the outcome of E
the departmental enquiry."

10. Mr. Jaideep Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing
on behalf of the appellant, would submit :

(1) The learned Single Judge committed a serious F
error in so for as it failed to take into consideration
that for invoking clause 16 of the Shastri Award,
personal service of notice was not imperative as the
same could be effected by registered post with
acknowledgment due. G

(2) As the respondent did not join his services despite
service of notice, it was not necessary for the
appellant to initiate any departmental proceedings.

(3) Validity of clause 16 having been upheld in a large H
654 SUPREME COURT HEPORTS [2009] 5 S.C.R.

A number of decisions of this Court, the High Court
committed a serious error in passing the impugned
judgment.

(4) In any event, respondent having started his own
business, the High Court committed a serious error
B
in directing his reinstatement in his service.

11. Mr. Niraj Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the respondent, on the other hand, would urge :

c (i) In view of the concurrent finding of fact arrived at
by two courts that 236 days' leave was due to the
respondent, clause 16 of Shastri Award was not
attracted and, thus,, this Court should not interfere
with the impugned judgment.
D
(ii) Service of notice upon the respondent asking him
to join his services having not been proved, as has
been held by the learned Single Judge, the
impugned judgment does not warrant interference.

E (iii) In any view of the matter as the learned Single
Judge had given an opportunity for initiating a
departmental proceeding against the respondent to
the appellant and having regard to the fact that since
2004, the respondent had been working in the bank
F and furthermore as during the said period, no
departmental proceeding has. been initiated, this
Court may not exercise its discretionary jurisdiction
under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

12. Clause 16 of the Shastri Award reads as under:
G
"Where an employee has not submitted any application for
leave and absented himself from work for a period of 90
or more consecutive days without or beyond any leave to
his credit or absents himself for 90 days or more
H consecutive days beyond the period of leave originally
REGIONAL MANAGER, CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA v. 655
VIJAY KRISHNA NEEMA & ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.]

sanctioned or subsequently extended or where there is A
satisfactory evidence that he has taken unemployment in
India or the management is satisfied that he has no present
intention of joining duties, the management may at any
time thereafter give a notice to the employee's last known
address calling upon the employee to report for duty within B
thirty days of the notice, stating inter alia the grounds for
the management coming to the conclusion that the
employee has no intention of joining duties and furnishing
necessary evidence, where available. Unless the
employees reports for duty within thirty days or unless he c
gives an explanation for his absence satisfying the
management that he has not taken up another employment
or avocation and that he has no intention of not joining
duties, the employee will be deemed to have voluntarily
retired from the Bank's service on the expiry of the said
0
notice. In the event of the employee submitting a
satisfactory reply, he shall be permitted to report for duty
thereafter within thirty days from the date of the expiry of
the aforesaid notice without prejudice to the Bank's right
to take any action under the law or rules of services."
E
13. The said award provides for the mode and manner in
which service of notice shall be effected in the following terms:
"Issue of notices and orders:- Notices which are required
to be given shall be served individually on the employees
affected and their acknowledgments taken, and shall also F
be exhibited on the notice boards of the bank at the offices
or establishments concerned. Such notices as are so
exhibited shall be in English and also in the principal
language of the district or locality in which each such office
or establishment is situated . Any notice, order, charge- G
sheet, communication or intimation which is meant for an
individual employee shall be in a language understood by
the employee concerned. In the case of an absent
employee notice shall be sent to him by registered post,
with acknowledgment due." H
656 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 5 S.C.R.

A 14. The question as regards validity of Clause 16 of
Shastri Award and/or provisions akin thereto is no longer res
integra.

An employee may, in certain situations, abandon or
. deemed to have abandoned his job. What constitutes
8
abandonment may be a matter of a statutory provision or
agreement between the employer and the Union. Although
absence without leave for a long time may constitute a grave
misconduct on the part of the employee concerned, in a case
of this nature, in view of clause 16 of the Shastri Award, an
C employee can be treated to have ceased from employment.

In Viveka Nand Sethi v. Chairman, J & K Bank Ltd.
[(2005) 5 SCC 337), this Court, inter alia, relying upon the
decision of this Court in Punjab &Sind Bank &Ors. v. Sakattar
D Singh [(2001 (1) SCC 214] and Syndicate Bank v. General
Secretary, Syndicate Bank Staff Association and Anr. [(2000)
5 sec 65), held as under :

"15. The bipartite settlement is clear and unambiguous. It
should be given a literal meaning. A bare perusal of the
E
said settlement would show that on receipt of a notice
contemplated thereunder, the workman must either: (1)
report for duties within thirty days; (2) give his explanation
for his absence satisfying the management that he has not
taken any employment or avocation; and (3) show that he
F has no intention of not joining the duties. It is, thus, only
when the workman concerned does not join his duties
within thirty days or fails to file a satisfactory explanation,
as referred to hereinbefore, that the legal fiction shall come
into force. In the instant case except for asking for grant
G of medical leave, he did not submit any explanation for his
absen·ce satisfying the management that he has not taken
up any other employment or avocation and that he had no
intention of not joining his duties.

H xxx xxx xxx
REGIONAL MANAGER, CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA v. 657
VIJAY KRISHNA NEEMA & ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.]
20. It may be true that in a case of this nature, the principles A
. of natural justice were required to be complied with but the
same would not mean that a full-fledged departmental
proceeding was required to be initiated. A limited enquiry
as to whether the employee concerned had sufficient
explanation for not reporting to duties after the period of B
leave had expired or failure on his part on being asked
so to do, in our considered view, amounts to sufficient
compliance with the requirements of the principles of
natural justice."

The same view was reiterated by this Court in New India
c
Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Vipin Behari Lal Srivastava [(2008) 3
sec 446].
15. Principle of natural justice, it is trite, does not operate
irrespective of the statutory provisions. D
It was not a case where like Uptron India Ltd. v. Shammi
Bhan & Anr. [(1998) 6 SCC 538] and Scooters India Ltd. v.
M. Mohd. Yaqub [(2001) 1 SCC 61]. no notice w~s required
to be issued. E
Clause 16 of the Shastri Award provides for issuance of
such notice. If despite service of notice the employee did not
report for duty, the consequences therefor would ensue.

In V.C., Banaras Hindu University & Ors. v. Shrikant F
[(2006) 11 SCC 42], upon referring to D.K. Yadav v. JMA
Industries Ltd. ((1993) 3 SCC 259, Uptron India Limited
(supra) and Scooters India Ltd. (supra), it was opined :

"57. The matter may, however, be different in a case where
despite having been given an opportunity of hearing, G
explanation regarding his unauthorised absence is not
forthcoming or despite giving him an opportunity to join his
duty, he fails to do so, as was the case in Punjab & Sind
Bank v. Sakattar Singh."
H
658 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 5 S.C.R.

A This Court upon considering Vivek Sethi (supra), held as
under:
"60. A provision relating to abandonment of service came
up for consideration yet again in Viveka Nand Sethi v.
Chairman, J&K Bank Ltd. before a Division Bench of this
B
Court. This Court opined that although in a case of that
nature, principles of natural justice were required to be
complied with, a full-fledged departmental enquiry may not
be necessary, holding:
c "A limited enquiry as to whether the employee
concerned had sufficient explanation for not
reporting to duties after the period of leave had
expired or failure on his part on being asked so to
do, in our considered view, amounts to sufficient
D compliance with the requirements of the principles
of natural justice."
61. Mr. Dwivedi placed strong reliance upon the decision
of this Court in Aligarh Muslim University v. Mansoor Ali
Khan. In that case, interpretation of Rule 5(8)(ii) came up
E for consideration which is in the following terms:
"5{8)(ii) An officer or other employee who absents
himself without leave or remains absent without
leave after the expiry of the leave granted to him,
F shall, if he is permitted to rejoin duty, be entitled to
no leave allowance or salary for the period of such
absence and such period will be debited against
his leave account as leave without pay unless his
leave is extended by the authority empowered to
G grant the leave. Wilful absence from duty after the
expiry of leave may be treated as misconduct for
the purpose of clause 12 of Chapter IV of the
Executive Ordinances of AMU and para 10 of
Chapter IX of Regulations of the Executive Council."
H It was held that a show-cause notice and reply would be
REGIONAL MANAGER, CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA v. 659
.... VIJAY KRISHNA NEEMA & ORS. [S.S. SINHA, J.]
necessary. If no show-cause notice had been given, this A
.' Court held that the principles of natural justice would be
held to be complied with."
Yet again in UP. State Bridge Corpn. Ltd. v. UP. Rajya
Setu Nigam S. Karamchari Sangh [(2004) 4 SCC 268], it was
,>. ~ B
held as under :
"23. D.K. Yadav is an authority for the proposition that the
principles of natural justice would have to be read in the
standing orders. That was a case where there was a
standing order similar to CSO L-2.12 except that 8 days' c
margin was granted within which the workman was
required to return and satisfactorily explain the reasons for
his absence or inability to return after the expiry of leave.
This view was reiterated in the later decision of this Court
in Lakshmi Precision Screws Ltd. v. Ram Bahagat where D
it was held that the element of natural justice was an inbuilt
requirement of the standing orders.
24. In this case, the appellant Corporation had issued two
notices calling upon the workmen represented by the
respondent to return to duty. The workmen did not respond E
to either of the notices. As we have noted it was not
pleaded that the advertisement did not sufficiently comply
with the principles of natural justice. The notice was issued
giving an opportunity to the respondent to show cause why
-' ... the presumption should not be drawn under CSO L-2.12. F
The respondent did not show cause. In thedrcumstances,
the management drew the presumption in terms of the
CSO."
16. The question which, however, arises for consideration
G
is as to whether the appellant has been able to prove that the
.,.. notice was served upon the respondent. The High Court, it
4
must be noticed at the outset, committed a serious error in
holding that personal service of notice was imperative
inasmuch as in case of an absent employee notice was
required to be served by registered post with acknowledgment H
660 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 5 S.C.R.

A due. The learned Single Judge has arrived at a finding of fact
that notice, in fact, has not been served upon him. Appellant
has merely produced a photostat copy of the envelop. There
was nothing to show that the notice was sent under registered
cover with acknowledgment due.
B
Furthermore, there is nothing to show that the fact that the
respondent has changed his address was not known to the
officers of the bank. The shifting of the residence by the
respondent has not been denied. In fact, the subsequent event,
C namely, filing of a suit for recovery of amount of loan from the
respondent clearly suggests that officers of the appellant were
aware of the respondent's changed address. Moreover, a
concurrent finding of fact in regard to the non-service of notice
has been arrived at.
D Learned Single Judge had furthermore given liberty to the
appellant to give an opportunity of hearing to the respondent. It
is also not in dispute that the respondent has been working in
the bank since 2004. In the aforementioned facts and
circumstances of this case, we are of the opinion that it is not
E a fit case where this Court should exercise its discretionary
jurisdiction under Article 13~ of the Constitution of India.
17. It may be true that a contention has been raised by the
appellant that the respondent had started business in the name
of Builders and Brokers. The said fact was sought to prove from
F the greeting cards sent to the officers of the bank on the t- ....
occasion of Diwali. Although the said plea was required to be
taken into consideration by the High Court, in our opinion, it is
not necessary to go into the said question as in view of the fact
that the respondent has already been reinstated in service.
G Appellant would, however, be at liberty to avail the remedies
given to it by the High Court.
18. The appeal is dismissed. However, there shall be no ~ -
order as to costs.
H D.G. Appeal dismissed.