Civil Writ Petition No. 14143 of 2011 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh … Civil Writ Petition No. 14143 of 2011 Date of decision: August 17,2011 Amit Gupta ..Petitioner Versus State Bank of India and others ..Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice L.N.Mittal Present: Ms. Sunita Chauhan, Advocate for Mr. H.O.Attri, Advocate for the petitioner. ... L.N.Mittal,J.(Oral) Amit Gupta has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court by filing instant Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Petitioner's case is that he joined the service of respondent No.1- State Bank of India on 5.4.2010 in Officer Cadre as Management Executive (MGS-II) on the basis of selection. The petitioner successfully completed the training and passed the exit test. The petitioner reported to Branch Manger, Morinda in May 2010 as directed and performed his duty to the satisfaction of his seniors. On 1.6.2010, petitioner again reported at the SBI Learning Centre at Panchkula for further training with effect from 1.6.2010. However, on 2.6.2010, petitioner developed serious back ache. Complete bed rest for 7 days was advised by authorized doctor of Bank. The petitioner applied for 5 days leave. However, condition of the petitioner deteriorated and he required attendant. Accordingly, petitioner applied for extension of leave . He got himself examined from Lok Nayak Hospital (Government Hospital) in New Delhi on 7.6.2010. The petitioner was advised complete bed rest. Accordingly petitioner applied for leave of 3 weeks vide application dated 7.6.2010. As per call received by the petitioner from the Bank, the petitioner submitted another leave application dated Civil Writ Petition No. 14143 of 2011 2 16.6.2010. As condition of the petitioner did not improve, he submitted application dated 28.6.2010 for extension of medical leave. The petitioner received letter dated 29.6.2010 from the Bank declining the leave from 3.6.2010 to 27.6.2010 as no leave was to the credit of the petitioner. He was also informed that he shall be treated as absent unauthorisedly from duty with effect from 3.6.2010 and that no salary/allowance shall be payable to him for the said period and his annual increment and probation period will be extended accordingly. The petitioner got himself examined on 23.7.2010 in Safderjang Hospital, New Delhi from a Senior Specialist. The petitioner was advised rest for another 3 weeks. He was re-examined on 17.8.2010 and was advised bed rest for 3 weeks. The petitioner then received letter dated 22.9.2010 from the Bank that no leave is available to the credit of the petitioner and, therefore, he should immediately report for duty, failing which the Bank shall proceed against the petitioner under the relevant Service Rules. The petitioner sent reply dated 27.9.2010 intimating that he had been advised complete bed rest for another 4 weeks. Extension of leave till 16.10.2010 was also prayed for. The petitioner after recovering from his ailment appeared in the office of Circle Development Officer, Chandigarh Circle of the Bank, on 23.11.2010 and submitted his joining report. However, after a little while, impugned termination order dated 23.11.2010 (Annexure P-14) was handed over to the petitioner. The petitioner preferred departmental appeal against said order which has been dismissed vide order dated 19.4.2011(Annexure P-17). Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has filed the instant writ petition challenging termination order dated 23.11.2010 (Annexure P-14) and order dated 19.4.2011(Annexure P-17) whereby petitioner's representation/appeal has been dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that according to Rule 3 of the Leave Rules (Annexure P-18), an Officer is eligible for maximum sick leave of 18 months in his entire service and therefore, the Civil Writ Petition No. 14143 of 2011 3 petitioner should have been granted sick leave for the period from 3.6.2010 till 22.11.2011 as the petitioner had submitted his medical certificate to avail of sick leave and therefore, the impugned termination order is illegal. The contention although apparently attractive is completely meritless and misconceived. Note 3 to Rule 3 of the Leave Rules provides that sick leave due to an Officer on any particular day will be calculated on the basis of total period of service as on that date at the rate of 30 days for each completed year of service and prorata for the broken period. The petitioner had put in less than 2 months of service as on 3.6.2010 and therefore, sick leave for not more than 5 days could be due to him but he remained absent from duty for 5 months 20 days since 3.6.2010 till 22.11.2010. He was not entitled to sick leave for the said period as no such leave was due to him. The petitioner was not unaware of this fact. On the contrary, this fact was duly intimated to the petitioner by the Bank vide letter dated 29.6.2010 (Annexure P-7). It was specifically stated in this letter that there was no leave to the credit of the petitioner and he would be treated as unauthorisedly absent from duty. Again vide letter dated 22.9.2010(Annexure P- 10), the Bank reminded the petitioner of letter dated 29.6.2010 (Annexure P-7) intimating his leave status/unauthorized absence etc. with effect from 3.6.2010. The petitioner was also intimated that no leave could be sanctioned to him as he had no leave to his credit. He was again told that he would be treated as unauthorizedly absent from duty. He was also required to report for duty immediately, failing which the Bank shall proceed against him under the relevant Service Rules. Inspite thereof , the petitioner did not join his duty. In view of the aforesaid, no fault can be found with the impugned termination order. The petitioner was on probation for one year. However, just after less than 2 months of service, the petitioner remained absent for 5 months 20 days. Consequently, the Bank decided to terminate the petitioner's services in terms of Rule 16(3) of the State Bank of India Officers Service Rules. The termination order has been passed during the probation period in accordance with relevant Service Rules. Consequently, the impugned termination order as Civil Writ Petition No. 14143 of 2011 4 well as the order rejecting the representation of the petitioner against the termination order cannot be said to be bad in any manner. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed in limine. August 17,2011 (L.N.MITTAL) nk JUDGE