U. G. HARISHANKAR Vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition filed under At. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the legality and validity of order of termination dated May 31, 1974 passed by the Respondents Bank.

(2.) Only few facts its are required to be stated to appreciate the grievance of the petitioner. The petitioner joined the services of the Bank as Junior Officer on Jan. 31, 1956. The petitioner was appointed as an agent of a Branch opened at Goregaon (West) in Aug. 1966. In Jan. 1968 the petitioner was transferred to a Branch situated at Goregaon (East). In March 1970, the petitioner was transferred to Staff Department, Main Branch in the Custodian's Secretariat Section. On June 15, 1970, the Secretary, Gopalan of the Department sought explanation of the petitioner regarding an account of one M/s. Bini Metal Works in Goregaon (East), Branch. The Secretary found that the petitioner was guilty in regard to the maintenance of that account and a punishment of withholding one increment of March 1978 was Imposed. It appears that subsequently in Jan. 1971, the Custodian of the Bank sought explanation from the petitioner in regard to the same account and the further increments were denied to the petitioner on the. ground that the petitioner has reached the efficiency bar. Some-time in March 1972, one of the partner of M/s. Bini Metal Works filed a criminal complaint against the other partner and Secretary Gopalan in the Criminal Court and the petitioner was examined in those proceedings as a witness the Custodian thereupon asked the petitioner to go on forced leave but the petitioner refused to do so. By the end of 1972, the petitioner was transferred to Branch Accounts Department. The petitioner, in the meanwhile, filed Civil Suit No. 5271 of 1973 against the Bank in the City Civil Court claiming increments Thereafter on May 31 1974, the Bank has served a notice of termination on the petitioner which is annexed as Ex. 'B' to the petition.

(3.) By this Memorandum, the petitioner was informed that his services are no longer required and arc terminated with immediate effect. A pay Order for Rs. 5,262 being three months' salary and emoluments in lieu of notice was also enclosed. the petitioner has filed the present proceedings under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India in this Court on Oct. 30, 1974. A notice of admission was issued to the Bank and the Bank has filed an affidavit to oppose the admission of the petition on July 21, 1979. By this affidavit, the Bank has produced a copy of the order passed by the Managing Director for terminating the cervices of the petitioner The order Is Issued by the Managing Director to the Personnel Manager, staff Department, on Jan. 16, 1974 and it, inter-alia, mentions that the petitioner was guilty of gross irregularities and stoppage of one increment was a light punishment. It was also stated in the order that the petitioner played a very mischievous role during the criminal trial commenced by a partner of M/s Bini Metal Works inasmuch as confidential information and papers from the Bank were passed on the complainant The order further states that the Managing Director has received reliable information that the petitioner has invested a large sum in M/s Bini Metal Works and to safeguard his capital, the Bank was forced in continuing the credit facilities. The Managing Director, therefore, observed that be had lost confidence in the petitioner, and his continuance in the service was detrimental to the interest of the Bank and, therefore, the service of the petitioner requires to be terminated. This order unmistakably indicates that the punishment of termination of service was Imposed as the Bank authorities felt that the petitioner was guilty of serious lapses. The order of termination obviously was not a discharge simpliciter but was imposed by way of punishment.