IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.2213 of 2006 Between: O. Venkata Rao, S/o. Narasimha Rao, Aged 49 years, Andhra Bank, A.K. Nagar Branch, Nellore, R/o. Nellore. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Dy. General Manager & Competent Authority Andhra Bank, Head Office, Personnel Department, (IR) Hyderabad. 2 The Enquiry Officer, Andhra Bank, Head Office, Personnel Department, (IR) Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.JAGAPATHI Counsel for the Respondents: DR.K.LAKSHMI NARASIMHA (SC FOR ANDHRA BANK) The Court made the following : ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition is filed for a Writ of Certiorari to quash Letter No.666/20/NV/1672 dated 14.12.2005 of respondent No.1. For the purpose of disposal of this writ petition, the facts, in detail, need not be recorded. It will suffice to note that the proceedings impugned in this writ petition are in the nature of charge sheet and notice to the petitioner to file his defence, if any, within 15 days from the date of receipt of the charge sheet. The gravaman of the charge against the petitioner is that he entered service of Andhra Bank through Banking Service Recruitment Board by using community certificate depicting as belonging to Scheduled Tribe category. Though the petitioner raised several pleas in the writ petition and persuaded this Court to grant stay of all further proceedings in pursuance of the impugned proceedings, at the vacate stay petition stage, the petitioner having noticed the prima facie view of this Court agreed to file an affidavit not only to resign to the post which he is holding, but also not to claim any terminal benefits. The case was accordingly adjourned to enable the petitioner to file such an affidavit. Today, the petitioner filed an affidavit with the following averments: “I respectfully submit on 19.03.2009, I have submitted an application for resignation from the Respondent Bank. The same was forwarded to the Head Office of the Respondent Bank at Hyderabad, through proper channel, duly recommended by all the authorities, including the Vigilance Department, at Head Office, but however, by letter No.666/20/Gr./1888 dt.31.3.2009, the 1st Respondent has returned the said application stating that the Competent Authority has not considered my application for resignation favourably, on the ground that disciplinary case initiated against me and the above Writ Petition, filed by me, are pending. The said letter dt.31.3.2009 reads as under: “With reference to the above, we are to inform you that application for resignation dt.20.03.2009 of Mr.O.Venkata Rao is not considered favourably by the competent authority as there is a disciplinary case and also Court case pending against the employee.” I respectfully submit that I am willing for resignation from the Respondent Bank without claiming any terminal benefits, except my provident fund. I, therefore, pray that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the 1st Respondent to accept my application dt.20.3.2009 for resignation from the Respondent Bank and relieve me from the service of the Respondent Bank.” Having considered the undertaking given by the petitioner in the form of affidavit, I am of the view that interest of justice would be met if the petitioner is permitted to resign without claiming any terminal benefits except the share of the Provident Fund amount contributed by him without liability of the bank to pay its part of contribution. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of with the declaration that the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the respondents stand abated and the petitioner shall be permitted to resign subject to the above condition that he will not be entitled to receive any terminal benefits except to the extent of Provident Fund amount actually contributed by him. Respondent No.1 is directed to pass a fresh order to the above affect. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition as indicated above, the interim order, dated 07.02.2006 is vacated and WPMP.No.2693 of 2006 is dismissed. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 18.04.2009 va