PRIYANKA KUMARI vs INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK & ORS.

Judgment text excerpt

$~1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Decided on: 20.02.2025 + W.P.(C) 2034/2025 PRIYANKA KUMARI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sumit Sharma, Ms. Uma Gaur, Mr. Piyush Gaur, Advocates. versus INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Chandra Prakash, Advocate for IOB. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN PRATEEK JALAN, J. (ORAL) 1. The petitioner, who was working as an Assistant Manager in the respondent- Indian Overseas Bank [“the Bank”], has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging an order dated 15.04.20241, by which the Bank has terminated her services on account of prolonged unauthorised absence, and an appellate order dated 19.11.2024, by which the order of termination has been upheld. 2. The petitioner joined the Bank as an Assistant Manager on probation on 06.08.2012. She was posted in the Lucknow region from 12.08.2012 until 08.07.2016. She was then transferred to Delhi, at her request, where she worked in the Regional Office from 09.07.2016 to 18.07.2016, and at the Daryaganj Branch from 19.07.2016 to 04.08.2021. 1 Annexure A-1 to the writ petition. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 2034/2025 Page 1 of 11 By:SHITU NAGPAL Signing Date:22.02.2025 17:05:05 During her tenure in the Daryaganj Branch, she was on sabbatical leave from 04.08.2020 to 03.08.2021. Upon her return from leave, she was posted in the Mahanagar Doorsanchar Bhawan Branch, Delhi from 05.08.2021 and relieved from there on 21.04.2023. 3. The genesis of the controversy lies in an order dated 15.04.20232, by which the petitioner was transferred to the Vijayawada Region of the Bank. She was directed to report to the Regional Office in Vijayawada after she was relieved on 21.04.2023, but did not report to the said office. 4. Inste