ANIL KUMAR JAIN S/O TARA CHAND JAIN Vs. THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR CANARA BANK, HEAD OFFICE 112-J.C.ROAD BANGALORE-560 002 AND THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR CANARA BANK, HEAD OFFICE 112-J.C.ROAD BANGALORE-560 002

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I .A.No.I/2011 for a direction is filed by the petitioner to relieve the petitioner on or before 25.11.2011 on acceptance of Voluntary Retirement, to enable him to join the Central Bureau of Investigation Department, as there is an offer of appointment by the said organization which expires on 30.11.2011. The prayer in the application is the main prayer in the petition, itself. Having regard to the circumstances and the time -frame within which the petitioner may either secure employment, which is on offer, or may stand to lose the opportunity and since his very career is at stake, the present application is filed. Hence the main petition is considered for final disposal.

(2.) IT is contended that the petitioner is now aged about 58 and he had entered the services of the respondents in the year 1974 at New Delhi and he rose to the current level of Deputy General Manager by December 2009. It is claimed that on promotion of the petitioner to the post of Deputy General Manager, he was posted at the Banks Prime Corporate Branch -II, at New Delhi and took charge of the Branch from its General Manager on 21.02.2010. This was a branch where borrowal accounts with the exposure of over Rs. 50 crore and above are only serviced. The branch amongst others had four borrowal accounts of one M/s.Positiv Group owned by a former Union Cabinet Minister with an outstanding amount of Rs. 83.93 crore and another account of M3 Media Private Limited, which was a non -performing asset with a liability of Rs.64 crore, in June 2010. The petitioner was instructed to conduct a scrutiny of staff accountability and send a report to the Chief Vigilance Officer of the Bank at its Head Office at Bangalore. Therefore, the petitioner had embarked on examining the relationship of M/s.Positiv Group with the bank, since January 2003. He had noticed serious irregularities. The petitioner on noticing the same, chose to write to the Central Vigilance Commission to seek its assistance in conducting investigations and the Central Vigilance Commission commenced the investigations on 04.09.2010.

(3.) THEREFORE , the petitioner had brought this to the attention of the Bank, with a request to relieve him in time, so as to enable him to join the Central Bureau of Investigation. The assignment was for a term of three years extendable by another two years and the average emolument would foe at Rs. 80,000/ - p.m. The place of functioning of the new assignment would be at New Delhi, to which place the petitioner belongs. However, it is contended that the same has not been considered and has been stalled on false' allegations that the petitioner is involved in several irregularities which are said to be under investigation and therefore, the Bank was not in a position to relieve him from service. It is in this background that the present petition is filed and since the time is fast running out for the petitioner to either report at Central Bureau of Investigation after being relieved from the respondents Bank or to forego the offer, which coming at this point of time in his life is very crucial for advancement of his career and therefore, he would submit that it is only on account of the petitioner having been a "whistle -blower" that he met with this fate and situation. It is contended that unless this Court intervenes at this point of time, the petitioner has no other alternative, but to forego the offer of employment. It is in the wake of this situation that the respondents were called upon to produce the material particulars on the basis of which, it is claimed that the petitioner is facing several cases, whereby there are allegations of irregularities which are under investigation which would be an impediment to relieve the petitioner from service.