K. SUKUMARAN, J.

There is nothing unique about UCO Bank : this is also a case of an official against the Bank.

2. The grievance is about a transfer. The legal argument is simple. Could the Bank effect a transfer when the employment came to an end consequent on the resignation of the employee The substantial defence of the Bank is that the resignation has not been accepted. If that be so, the relationship would continue; the transfer would be competent.

3. The petitioner joined service away back in 1968. He climbed up the official ladder, serving in different places. In Barelli, he was the Divisional Manager. He was in charge of Merchant Banking Division, not without its temptation. In August, 1988 he was back in Bombay. The petition has his own version for tendering resignation of a post with attractive perquisites and haloed status. They are mostly domestic : a wife employed and a son studying in Bombay, a daughter studying in Kolhapur. The disturbance by transfer is almost unbearable.

4. The Bank has a different story. While in Barelli, for about three years and more-from 1-6-1985 to 4-8-1988, he had indulged in irregularities (Irregularity is a snow-soft term with which we are accustomed to present even the most heinous act of deceit). There is a detailed enumeration of the acts which constitute the misconduct, in Exhibit D dated 17-8-1989. He was requested to submit his explanation. He submitted it on 29-8-1989.

5. It is in the back-drop of the above events, that the resignation was tendered on 24-12-1991, and tenaciously persued thereafter. In view of the initiation of disciplinary proceedings and the pendency thereof, the Bank was not obliged to accept the resignation. It did not. That is demonstrated in no uncertain terms by communication dated 10-1-1992.

6. The matter is governed by the UCO Bank Employees Service Regulations, 1979. Regulation 20 is particularly apposite. Regulation 20(3)(a) is a positive prohibition against an officer subjected to disciplinary proceedings resigning from services. When a notice is issued asking him to show cause, it marks the commencement of the disciplinary proceedings. On a proper reading of Exhibit D, there cannot be any doubt that it signalled such a commencement of disciplinary proceedings. In that back ground, the petitioners attempt to set himself free from the employment bondage, turns out to be a futile one.

7. Even otherwise, a responsible employee cannot seek to set himself free from the responsibilities of his office by merely flinging on the management a letter evincing his desire to have an exit from employment. Under the general law, a resignation will be effective only when it is accepted. That is based on sound policy. A responsible officer could not be permitted to be in a confusing garb. People have to deal with him with reasonable certainty. To permit officials unilaterally to throw away the apparel of authority would generate chaotic conditions in sensitive areas where certainty is rightly mandated. The high status of the employees of such instrumentalities, had been emphasised by judicial decisions. Along with powers and perks which he enjoy, a Bank Official has to share and shoulder duties and responsibilities. He cannot adopt an attitude that his office is just another piece of abandoned luggage.

8. The substantial contention about extinction of employee-employer relationship on the ground of attempted resignation, therefore fails; and fails miserably.

9. A second string to the bow, was aimed at the Constitutionality of the provision. The provision has been framed under the enabling statutory section 18. Though an attempt was made to demonstrate that Regulation 20 was outside that power, it lacks the force of law and logic. It is unnecessary for the Court to walk along slushy grounds, when firm enough ground is available for smooth passage. Neither in the observations in (Ajayakumar)1, case A.I.R. 1984 S.C. 1130, nor those in (Dabur (Dr. S.K. Burman) v. State of W.B.)2, 1978 Labour and Ind. Cases 1581 are applicable to the facts of the present case.

This case also brings to the fore, certain disturbing trends in the Banking sector. The irregularities, according to the Bank, resulted in the loss of about Rs. 42.5 lakhs-indeed a lilliputian among the Brobdinagians. But the pattern is distressing and disturbing. An efficient banking system should not have allowed irregularities going unnoticed for an inordinate period of time. Four years passed on, after the commission of irregularities. (Oral instructions - a familiar feature of corruption among others, figure in the show cause notice). A failure to have a time bound programme for conducting the enquiry and concluding the proceedings, will necessarily have its adverse effect, on the credibility of the banking system itself. The snow balling effect, could eventually lead to a crisis of creditability. Facilitating a corrupt official to operate in a different area, is no solution for the eradication for the evil of corruption. Those who function without integrity and devotion for duty, would rejoice when they are in fresh fields and pastures new. The nationalised official institutions and the Nation itself, could not permit things to drift. If would be profitable to enquire why action against the delinquent proceeded in such snail slow process. Was there any connivance of superiors, who should have been more vigilent Disturbing events need not necessarily create a scare. At the same time, it would be an abdication of duty of the responsible superior authorities, to ignore them, or to develop cold feet while tackling them. Long ago, a philosopher-writer emphasised the wisdom in taking care of small things. Great things could take care of themselves, in such a situation. The Reserve Bank of India and the Finance Ministry could do well to examine the greater details of the aspects alluded to above. Quite often, serious observations from courts alerting the administrators to action, appear to be ineffective in generating the right type of responses. It would be good for all concerned, if some more seriousness is bestowed, at a time when events already demand an over all seriousness in the functioning of all vital segments in the financial field.

A copy of the judgment would be forwarded to the Government of India and to the Governor, Reserve Bank of India.

Order accordingly.