"I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. The concerned workman (the employee) served the petitioner bank for 32 years," said Justice R V More of the high court in a recent order.
"In 1996-97, she was suffering from cancer. Her son at the relevant time was in USA and she wanted to visit USA for treatment. The record shows that she had applied for leave which was orally sanctioned. However, written application was not sanctioned," the judge noted.
The judge noted that the Tribunal had also considered the fact that this employee had also applied for voluntary retirement scheme and held that the punishment of dismissal would be too harsh. Hence, he set aside the dismissal while asking the Bank to allow the person to opt for voluntary retirement with effect from November 1, 2000.
More From This Section
"In my view, the discretion is used judiciously", said Justice More.
The court also refused to stay its order to enable Bank of India to file an appeal before a division bench.
The employee, Vasantbala Parmar, was dismissed by the Bank for professional misconduct with effect from January 31, 2002.
Parmar moved the Tribunal which held that enquiry against the employee was in keeping with the principles of natural justice. The charges against her were also proved.
However, dismissal was set aside and her case for voluntary statement was allowed.