Ms. Manpreet Saini vs. Bank Of Baroda

Held

The Court held that the petitioner had voluntarily executed a bond dated April 28, 2014, pursuant to the policy governing overseas posting, which was duly approved by the Bank's Board of Directors. Clause 5 of this bond explicitly obligated the officer to serve the Bank for a stipulated period after repatriation from overseas assignment, failing which she would be liable to pay ₹20,00,000/-. The Court found this sum to be a reasonable pre-estimated compensation for the Bank's loss in the event of premature resignation after repatriation, not a penalty, citing Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, and the Supreme Court's decision in Fateh Chand v. Balkishan Dass. The Court also held that resignation is not effective as a matter of right and becomes operative only upon acceptance by the competent authority, which can lawfully be made subject to the fulfillment of existing obligations. The petitioner could not claim unconditional relief or terminal benefits without discharging or securing the contractual liability. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed as an attempt to evade a voluntarily assumed contractual obligation.

Facts

The petitioner, Ms. Manpreet Saini, was appointed by the Bank of Baroda in 2010. In 2014, she was posted to the Bank's UK Operations and signed a security bond of ₹20,00,000/-. She completed her three-year overseas tenure and was repatriated to India. Due to matrimonial difficulties, she resigned on February 19, 2018, with her last working day as March 15, 2018. The Bank accepted her resignation on March 23, 2018, but demanded ₹20,00,000/- plus 18% GST, without assigning reasons. The petitioner was not relieved and relinquished charge on April 30, 2018. She challenged the demand for the bond amount and GST, arguing it was arbitrary and beyond the terms of her appointment and service regulations, especially since she had completed both her initial bonded service and the overseas tenure.

Key Issues

1. Whether the demand for ₹20,00,000/- along with GST @18% is arbitrary, illegal, and unenforceable in law, considering the petitioner completed both her initial bonded service and the entire three-year overseas tenure? (Issue of mixed law and fact, turning on the interpretation of the security bond and overseas posting orders). 2. Whether the alleged bond was duly executed in accordance with law and if any condition in the repatriation order required continued service or payment upon resignation? (Issue of mixed law and fact, turning on the validity and terms of the bond and repatriation order). 3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to unconditional acceptance of resignation, relief from service, and release of terminal benefits despite the subsisting bond obligation? (Issue of law, turning on the principles of resignation acceptance and contractual obligations under the Bank of Baroda (Officers') Service Regulations, 1979). Petitioner's arguments: The impugned demand is arbitrary and unenforceable as the petitioner completed both her initial bonded service and the overseas tenure. The overseas bond was merely security and exhausted upon repatriation. The bond was not duly executed, and the repatriation order did not mandate further service or payment. Her resignation was in accordance with regulations and could not be withheld without disciplinary proceedings. Respondent's arguments: The demand is legal and valid as the petitioner voluntarily signed a bond-cum-affidavit requiring her to serve the Bank in India for three years post-repatriation, failing which she would pay ₹20,00,000/-. The terms of the affidavit are binding. A policy for overseas posting mandated a five-year service post-repatriation, with a ₹20,00,000/- liability for failure. The resignation acceptance was conditional upon payment, and the Bank's action conforms to agreed terms and regulations. Resignation acceptance can be conditional.