1 srk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 416 OF 2001 Gopi Kishan Koka … Petitioner. Versus United Bank of India … Respondents. Mrs. P.R. Gupta i/b Y.R. Shah for Petitioner. Mr. Singh i/b Vyas & Bhalwal for Respondents. CORAM: D.K. DESHMUKH & R. G. KETKAR, JJ. DATED: 14th October, 2009. P.C. 1 The Petitioner by this Petition challenges the order dated 7th February, 2000. By that order, the Petitioner has been dismissed from service of the Respondent-Bank. The relevant facts are that while the Petitioner was in the service of the Respondent-Bank, he addressed a letter dated 16.11.1996 submitting his resignation from the service of the Respondent- Bank with effect from 16.12.1996. He stated that he is willing to pay salary for the short fall of the notice period. It appears that by letter dated 19.02.1997 he was informed that his resignation is not being accepted. It is common ground that for 2 giving up service by way of resignation, the resignation is required to be accepted by the competent authority. In other words, an employee cannot bring his service to an end by submitting his resignation unilaterally. It appears that a Departmental Enquiry was initiated against the Petitioner by memorandum dated 30th July, 1999. One of the allegations was that the Petitioner has remained absent from the duties from December, 1996. By letter dated 25th February, 1997 he was asked to attend the duties but he did not report for the duties. It appears that during this period he accepted another service at other bank and he was actually serving there. In the Departmental Enquiry the petitioner admittedly, did not participate. It appears that he filed Writ Petition No. 2323 of 1999. That Writ Petition was disposed of by order dated 10th February, 2000 and despite the Bank informing the court that the Petitioner has been dismissed from the service, the Court directed to Respondent-Bank to pay his terminal benefits of Rs.2,87,235/- and that payment admittedly has been made to the Petitioner and the payment of Rs. 2,50,000/- has admittedly been made to the Petitioner. Now by this petition, the petitioner is challenging the dismissal order. 3 2 We heard the learned counsel appearing for both the sides. As noted above, it is common ground that the petitioner submitted his resignation from service, but his service did not come to an end, as his resignation was never accepted. Therefore, as the Petitioner continued to be in service of the Respondent-Bank, it was his duty to continue to attend his duties and not to remain absent without getting his leave sanctioned. Admittedly, the Petitioner not only remained absent from duties but has also joined services of some other Bank. In our opinion, therefore, charges levelled against the petitioner in the enquiry i.e. remaining absent from duty without getting leave sanctioned and joining services with other organization, are proved. In our opinion, therefore, no exception can be taken to the order of the Bank dismissing the petitioner from service. In our opinion, therefore, there is no substance in the Writ Petition. The Petition stands dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to costs. (D.K. DESHMUKH, J) (R.G. KETKAR, J)