He further
contended that the High Court has also wrongly noted in the impugned judgment
that the period of absence of the respondent has been condoned and his joining
report was accepted by issuing a stern warning to the respondent. He contended
that there is no evidence on the record showing condonation of absence or
accepting joining or issuing of stern warning.
4. Mr. Kamran Murtaza, Learned Senior
Advocate Supreme Court for the respondent, on the other hand, has supported the
impugned judgment but has frankly conceded that from 31.10.2014 to 07.04.2016,
the respondent has remained absent from duty except for one day i.e.
02.02.2016.
5. It is quite evident from the record
and also admitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that the respondent
had remained absent from 31.10.2014 to 07.04.2016 except for one day i.e.
02.02.2016, when he stated to have reported for duty. It is also apparent from
the record that respondent was issued notices by the appellants to join duty
but he did not join duty, rather took a plea that on account of tribal feud he
is unable to work in the Bank having threat to his life. Though such ground was
taken by him but as stated by the learned counsel for the appellants, the
respondent did not provide any material or evidence showing that in fact there
was any tribal feud or there was threat to his life and even no instance in
this regard whatsoever was pointed out by the respondent. Not even an FIR of
any incident showing threat to the life of the respondent was provided to the
appellants.
6. From the record it is evident that the
respondent has remained absent from duty and that he has filed some
applications with the Bank asking for leave but such applications for leave
were not allowed, rather through absence notices dated 08.07.2015, 27.07.2015 and
06.08.2015, the respondent was directed to join duty but he chose not to do so.