- (1.) By means of the present petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, Dinesh Chandra Jain, seeks the following reliefs: (i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing orders dated 19.2.2000 passed by the Disciplinary Authority, Assistant General Manager, Industrial Relation Cell, Zonal Office, Syndicate Bank, Lucknow, respondent No. 4, order dated 12.5.2000, passed by the General Manager (Personnel), Syndicate Bank, Head Office, Manipal, State of Karnataka (Annexure No. 2) and order dated 14.7.2000 passed by the Executive Director, Syndicate Bank, Head Office, Manipal, State of Karnataka, respondent No. 2 (Annexure No. 3). (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the entire disciplinary proceedings emanating with issuance of charge sheet dated 5.2.99 (Annexure No. 14) and all proceedings including the punishment orders. (iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding respondent No. 3 to treat the petitioner in service as Assistant Manager of the Syndicate Bank, Meerut and to pay him his salary and allowances alongwith arrears of pay. (iv) Pass such other and further order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. (v) Award costs.
(2.) Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are as follows: According to the petitioner, he joined the Syndicate Bank on 21.5.1978 as a Clerk. He was promoted to the post of the Assistant Manager under Junior Management Grade Scale I on 3.6.1985. It is alleged by the petitioner that in the year 1986 while posted as Assistant Manager in the Maliwara Branch of the Bank at Ghaziabad he was constrained to file Original Suit No. 580 of 1989 in the Court of the Munsif, Ghaziabad, impleading Sri Y.K. Singhal, the then Manager, as defendant No. l and the Bank as other defendant. The relief sought for in the said suit was for a decree of Rs. 1,010.48P. on account of alleged illegal deductions made by Sri Y.K. Singhal or, in the alternative, a decree for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to credit his salary from the month of January, 1989 in the Savings Bank Account No. 3910 with the Bank's Maliwara Branch, Ghaziabad. According to the petitioner, he was pressurized to withdraw the suit as it was damaging the image of the Bank. On his refusal to withdraw the suit, harassment started with frequent transfers. He was transferred five times during the period of 49 months from April 1994 to May 1998. Sometimes in the year 1995, he developed some problems of osteo arthritis in his left hip joints and he was advised not to strain too much. In May 1998, while the petitioner was posted at Dola Branch in the district of Baghpat, he was transferred to Naripura Branch at Agra. He represented to the higher authorities against the said transfer. According to him, he was on medical leave during the period 1996-97 and while he was on leave, he had applied for his transfer to Meerut on medical grounds for better and effective medical treatment, which request was turned down. The petitioner again represented the matter on 28.7.1998 and 10.11.1998 but without any success. According to him, he did not join at Naripura Branch at Agra on the expectation of a favourable response from the Bank and also in the wake of the medical advice. He was served with a communication issued by the Regional Office, Agra on 20.10.1998 wherein he was informed that his absence from 27.6.1998 onward till he would join duty at Naripura Branch at Agra had been treated as unauthorised with consequential cut in salary, postponement of annual increment date and the period counted as break in service for superannuation benefits etc., which was without prejudice to the right of the Bank to initiate any disciplinary action that might be deemed fit. The communication was preceded by issue of a show cause notice dated 13.8.1998 and the reply given by the petitioner on 31.8.1998. A charge sheet was issued to the petitioner on 5.2,1999. In the articles of charge, it was mentioned that he had contravened Regulation 13(1) and 3(1) read with Regulation 24 of the Syndicate Bank Officer Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1976 Regulations"). A specific charge was framed against the petitioner that he had been transferred to Naripura Branch, Agra on 21.5.1998 and relieved from Dola Branch, Baghpat on 6.6.1998, which he never joined and remained absent without any information/sanction of leave, which caused lot of inconvenience to the Bank. The petitioner submitted his reply denying commission of any misconduct within the meaning of Regulation 13(1) and 3(1) read with Regulation 24 of the 1976 Regulations. He also submitted that the leave was available in his leave account and hence it was incorrect to state that his absence was unauthorised. No case for initiating disciplinary proceeding was made out. The request for engaging a legal practioner was declined by the Enquiry Officer. A regular enquiry was held and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated 4,1.2000 to the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority issued a show cause notice on 17.1.2000 calling upon the petitioner to show cause. The petitioner submitted his reply on 6.2.2000. The disciplinary authority after taking into consideration the material, the evidence recorded and the reply/explanation given by the petitioner as also the finding of the Enquiry Officer, held the petitioner guilty of all the charges and had imposed the penalty of removal from service of the Bank which shall not be a disqualification for future employment. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the General manager (P) under Regulation 17 of the Syndicate Bank Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as "the Discipline Regulations, 1976"). The General Manager (P), vide order dated 12.5.2000, had dismissed the appeal. A review petition under Regulation of the Discipline Regulations, 1976 was also preferred which had been dismissed as not maintainable. All the three orders are under challenge in the present writ petition.
(3.) We have heard Sri Ravi Kiran Jain, learned senior counsel, assisted by Sri R.K. Awasthi, on behalf of the petitioner, and Sri H.R. Misra, learned Counsel assisted by Sri P.K. Singhal on behalf of the respondent Bank.;