Bank of India and ors. Vs. Pale Ram Dhania - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

- indian evidence act, 1872 section 45: [s.b.sinha & cyriac joseph,jj] expert opinion - medical opinion as to cause of death reliability - symptoms usually found in death by asphyxia not found -doctor as yet opining that cause of death was asphyxia held, opinion cannot be relied upon. indian penal code, 1890 section 300: death of wife in matrimonial home - no explanation as to cause of death given by accused-husband held, though it is a strong circumstances against accused, it cannot be made basis for conviction in absence of any evidence of violence on deceased.section 300: murder case plea of alibi held, failure to prove the plea of alibi, constitutes additional circumstance against accused and can be taken into consideration only if prosecution proves all other circumstances to prove his guilt. .....virender kumar goel : (2004)illj1057sc , has held that an employee who sought voluntary retirement and subsequently wrote for its withdrawal but has withdrawn the amount of retiral benefits as per the voluntary retirement scheme, is not entitled to the withdrawal of his application for voluntary retirement. it is not disputed that in the present case the respondent herein withdrew the amount of retiral benefits on january 25, 2001.3. for the aforesaid reason, this appeal deserves to be allowed. we order accordingly. the order and judgment under challenge is set aside. there shall be no order as to costs.c.a. nos. 4099, 4100 of 2002 and 8833 of 20034. in view of the above order passed in c.a. no. 4098 of 2002, these appeals arc also allowed. the orders and judgments under challenge are set aside. there shall be no order as to costs.

Judgment:

ORDER

1. It is not disputed that the appellant Bank introduced a Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2000 (herein referred to as 'the Scheme') for its employees which had the approval of its Board of Directors. The Scheme was operative w.e.f. November 15, 2000 to December 14, 2000 for the employees who sought voluntary retirement. It is not disputed that the respondent herein who was an employee of the appellant Bank sought voluntary retirement under the Scheme on November 30, 2000. It is also not disputed that on December 2, 2000 he wrote to the Bank for withdrawal of his application for voluntary retirement. On January 22, 2001, the appellant Bank accepted the request for voluntary retirement of the respondent. Further, on January 25, 2001, the respondent withdrew the retiral benefits deposited in the Bank in his name as per voluntary retirement. It appears that the respondent changed his mind after the respondent was relieved from the employment and he filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the acceptance of his request for voluntary retirement. A learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed the petition and set aside the acceptance of the application for voluntary retirement submitted by the respondent. Aggrieved, the appellants preferred a letters patent appeal which was dismissed. It is against the said judgment, the appellants are in appeal before us.

2. A Bench of three Judges of this Court in Punjab National Bank v. Virender Kumar Goel : (2004)ILLJ1057SC , has held that an employee who sought voluntary retirement and subsequently wrote for its withdrawal but has withdrawn the amount of retiral benefits as per the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, is not entitled to the withdrawal of his application for voluntary retirement. It is not disputed that in the present case the respondent herein withdrew the amount of retiral benefits on January 25, 2001.

3. For the aforesaid reason, this appeal deserves to be allowed. We order accordingly. The order and judgment under challenge is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs.

C.A. Nos. 4099, 4100 of 2002 and 8833 of 2003

4. In view of the above order passed in C.A. No. 4098 of 2002, these appeals arc also allowed. The orders and judgments under challenge are set aside. There shall be no order as to costs.