Case Study - Labor Law

A case study
of v. Krishi Bikash Bank

Rajendra Joshi
Case: certiorari
NKP 2074, Writ no. 066-WO-0355
Decision No.9785
Division Bench
Honorable Justice Mr. Omprakash Mishra
Honorable Justice Ms. Ishwor pd.
Khatiwora
Prepared
by: Rahul
Kumar
Jha
Roll
Krishi Bikash Bank and the appeallate sub committee traminated Mr.
Rajendra Joshi who have joined the Agricultural Development Bank in
the official position of Branch Manager from 2042/11/05. but the
individual remained absent from the office for more than 90 days
without prior notice and continued to be absent even after starting work,
considering the records of individuals with a similar situation (from
2044/07/03 to 2044/10/15 (i.e 102 days), from 2052/03/10 to 2053/10/22
(i.e. 666 days) and from 2064/10/06 to 2065/01/27 (i.e 110 days), the
decision to terminate from service is in accordance with the law.
Therefore, the writ petition was filed by the plaintiff
Claims of Petitioner
The petitioner, having taken leave due to illness on 2064/10/4 and
received treatment at Kathmandu Bir Hospital, later returned to the
office on 2065/1/29. Although the leave was approved, a clarification
was sought as the he submitted the request after the leave was granted.
Despite providing a clarification along with evidence, the decision to
remove the petitioner from service was upheld without fair
consideration. This is the main point mentioned in the plea for a review
of the decision upheld by the subcommittee on 2066/5/14. The petitioner
claimed that the termination that he got from the authority was against
law as he has done all the procedures that were required to take leave.
Claims of Respondant
The written response states that, according to the legal process

completed by the authorized officer after the individual remained absent
from the office for more than 90 days without prior notice and continued
to be absent even after starting work, considering the records of
individuals with a similar situation, the decision to terminate from
service is in accordance with the law. Therefore, it is mentioned that
when the decision is legally justified, the writ petition should be
dismissed. Bank authority claimed that the petitioner have allegedly
taken the leaved without fulfilling the due process of law that were
required to for getting leave.
The writ petitioner Rajendra Kumar Joshi has been found to repeatedly
violate the terms of service, remaining absent without providing
information to the concerned bank and authorities for more than 90 days
on each occasion. Subsequent requests for leave were disapproved, and
clarification sought during the disciplinary process was not submitted
within the stipulated time. The petitioner did eventually submit the
clarification after an extended period, without demonstrating genuine
satisfaction or understanding of the situation. Following a thorough
investigation, a decision has been made in accordance with Section 7,
Sub-section 7(g) of the Agriculture Development Bank Ltd. Employee
Service Regulation, 2062, to terminate the petitioner from service. It is
noted that the decision to terminate has been made following an
appropriate legal process, including providing the petitioner with the
opportunity for a departmental hearing. The officer authorized to impose
departmental penalties has exercised authority in accordance with the
regulation, and deviation from this decision would not be justifiable
otherwise.
Legal Questions
1. Whether the decision to terminate the plaintiff from service
through a notice from the Agriculture Development Bank on
the date 2065/4/31 is valid?
2. Whether the rejection of the appeal, as per the decision of the
subcommittee on 2066/5/14, legally valid?
3. Whether this writ order be issued or not?
The Decision of Supreme Court
Therefore, considering the records of plaintiff's leave records i.e. (from

2044/07/03 to 2044/10/15 (i.e 102 days), from 2052/03/10 to 2053/10/22
(i.e. 666 days) and from 2064/10/06 to 2065/01/27 (i.e 110 days), the
decision to terminate from service is in accordance with the law
examined basis and reasons as he even have not shown the OPD report
that will be given from the hospital that he claimed to be admitted. Thus,
the decision made on 2065/4/31 to provide leave to the petitioner
Rajendra kumar Joshi, deeming him unfit for future employment, the
judicial decision to uphold this, as per the subcommittee's decision on
2066/5/14, and the actions taken on 2066/5/24, have all been found to be
in accordance with the law. Consequently, the request for an order based
on the petition is not deemed valid.
Thankyou

Case Study - Labor Law

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case Study - Labor Law

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case Study - Labor Law

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A case study

of v. Krishi Bikash Bank

The written response states that, according to the legal process

The Decision of Supreme Court

Therefore, considering the records of plaintiff's leave records i.e. (from

You might also like