- (1.) THIS writ application is directed against an order of termination of the service of the petitioner passed by the respondent no.2 under his memo No. PER:IRD:4050:2005 dated November 5, 2005. The back drop of this case in a nutshell is as under:- The petitioner participated in a selection process for appointment of Assistant General, Managers Net Working under the respondent Bank on the basis of his application dated May 3, 2003. By a communication issued under memo No.PER:HRD:RCT:6691:2003 dated December 17, 2003 the petitioner was informed by the respondent no.3 that he had been selected for appointment to the post of Assistant General Manager, Net working in SMG Scale�V with the conditions that he would be on probation for a period of one year from the date of joining the respondent bank and he would be considered for conformation in service subject to his satisfactory performance, conduct and satisfactory report from the police authorities about his character and antecedent and the petitioner would be governed by the following regulations:- i) Vijaya Bank(Officers) Service Regulations, 1982 ii) Vijaya Bank Officer Employees '(Conduct) Regulations, 1991. iii) Vijaya Bank Officer Employees ' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1981. iv) Vijaya Bank (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995.
(2.) ON June 5, 2004, the petitioner joined the above service at Bangalore. After expiry of the period of one year for probation, letter of confirmation was not sent to the petitioner. By an order passed by the General Manager(Personnel), (Disciplinary Authority), under memo no. PER:IRD:BGL:212:2005 dated January 15, 2005, the petitioner was placed under suspension from the services of the respondent bank with immediate effect on an allegation of making an attempt to take away 4 box files containing highly confidential tender document relating to a 'Manageable Switch Tender ' from his office cabin at DIT, HO, unauthorisedly through his personal driver. He was advised not to enter into the premises of the respondent bank without written permission from the authority. On January 27, 2005 the petitioner preferred an appeal against the above order of suspension before the Executive Director of the respondent bank under the provisions of Regulation 17(1) of Vijaya Bank Officers Employees ' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1981. By a communication issued under memo No.DIT/GM/1008/2005 dated March 3, 2005 the respondent no.3 asked the petitioner to submit his version in respect of in the matter of taking away 4 box files containing highly confidential tender documents relating procurement 'Manageable Switch ' out of the bank 's premises unauthorisedly through his personal driver. In reply dated March 9, 2005 the petitioner categorically denied the above allegation stating therein that due to mistake, communication gap and language barrrier those confidential files had been taken by his driver. It was also stated in the above reply that those files were in the custody of the petitioner since he was entrusted to deal with the matter under reference. By a communication issued under memo No.PER:IRD:BGL:1472:2005 dated April 12, 2005 the order of suspension under reference was revoked with the following conditions:- "1. Your suspension from the services of the Bank is revoked without prejudice to the Bank 's right to initiate disciplinary proceedings against you as deemed fit, for the acts of misconduct allegedly committed by you. 2. As far as the treatment of the period of your suspension is concerned, the same shall be communicated to you while passing the final order of the Disciplinary Authority in the matter. 3. The Bank reserves its right to place you under suspension by means of an order to that effect, if the facts and circumstances so warrant. " The tenure of probation of the petitioner was extended for a period of six months by an order passed by the General Manager(Personal) of the respondent bank in terms of the conditions of his service as mentioned in clause 3 read with clause 2 and 8(c) of his letter of appointment dated December 17, 2003 on the ground that the performance of the petitioner had not been found satisfactory. By a further communication issued under memo no.PER/HRD/2345/2005 dated April 13, 2005 the respondent no.3 transferred the petitioner to the regional office, Kolkata of the respondent bank. By a subsequent communication issued under memo no.ROC/PER/KPH/2005 dated April 18, 2005 by the respondent no.4 allocated the following jobs: "Jobs connected to Branch Computerization mainly setting right the problems; Implementation of Core Banking Solutions in the branches of Kolkata Region; Arranging computer training to all the employees in Kolkata Region and ensuring smooth conduct of the training programmes; Any other work entrusted by the Regional Manger from time to time. " The performance of the petitioner with regard to the implementation of Core Banking Solutions was appreciated by the Deputy Controller of Accounts under memo No.ZAO/CBDT/KOL/RCDW/Meeting/05-06/276 dated July 15, 2005 is quoted below: "Performance of all the Banks was evaluated at the special meeting regarding procedural irregularities in implementation of OLTAS held at Kolkata on 14.7.2005 and performance of the Vijaya Bank is praiseworthy. Vijaya Bank has adopted the OLTAS work very correctly and efficiently within a very short period of time. All the bank of this zone are advised to contact the Assistant General Manager, Vijaya Bank Service Branch, Kolkata for any difficulty that arises during implementation of OLTAS. " By an order dated May 4, 2005 the petitioner was transferred to the service Branch, Kolkata of the respondent bank. By a communication issued under memo No.PER/HRD/RCT/5112/2005 dated July 4, 2005 the respondent no.3 extended period of probation of the petitioner FOR THE SECOND TIME for a period of six months with effect from July 5, 2005 on the ground that his performance had not been found satisfactory. Ultimately by a communication issued under memo no.PER:IRD:4050;2005 dated November 5, 2005 the respondent no.2 terminated the services of the petitioner with immediate effect in terms of Regulation 16(3)(a) of Vijaya Bank(Officers) Regulations, 1982, read with clause(3) of the letter of appointment of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, he had been made a subject of deep-rooted conspiracy by some senior officers of the respondent bank including the respondent nos.5 and 6.
(3.) ACCORDING to him, he was appointed to implement and maintain the Core Banking Solution Net working throughout India to provide online service in all branches of the respondent bank. In discharging his duties, the petitioner provided specific design for purchase of several computers and related hardwares for Net working. Consequent thereupon, the respondent bank floated tender for purchasing Manageable Switch. The members of the tender committee, which included the petitioner amongst other members, considered the tender documents of three participants in its meeting dated April 2, 2004 observing that technical bids submitted by CMC Ltd. and Wipro Ltd., were in compliance with the bank 's requirement and decided to place the same before the General Manager, DIT seeking his approval for opening price bids. Ultimately, Wipro Ltd., succeeded in the tender. According to the petitioner, during the supply made by Wipro Ltd., the petitioner repeatedly asked the supplier to verify the quality of the product as per design since it was a pre-requisite in tender that a pre-delivery inspection would to be conducted prior to acceptance of the product. The Wipro Ltd. got the condition wipped out by the orders of the respondent no.5. According to the petitioner he repeatedly emphasized upon the pre-delivery inspection in the interest of the respondent bank but he was scolded by the respondent nos.5 and 6 in strong terms for restraining him from creating any hindrance in the matter. Ultimately, the Wipro Ltd. submitted test plan to the respondent no.5 directly. According to the petitioner, the respondent no.5 sent the test plain to a consultant who was not authorised for that purpose. Finally, the consultant sent his advice in favour of a test plan on January 10, 2005. The respondent no.5 sent this plan along with advise of consultant to the petitioner on January 12, 2005. According to the petitioner, he found fraud being committed by Wipro Ltd. as it was proposing the test plan on those designs/parts were was never purchased by the respondent bank and it was reported to the respondent no.5 by the petitioner refusing to accept the above proposal. According to the petitioner, he was asked by the respondent nos.5 and 6 at the chamber of the respondent no.6 to accept the test plan and to sign the papers relating to the supply of the materials under reference so that payment could be made to Wipro Ltd. immediately untimarely on January 15, 2000. According to the petitioner his refusal was the cause of passing suspension order dated January 15, 2005. According to him, the above action resulted in termination of his service due to malice on the part of the respondent nos.5 and 6. It is submitted by Mr. Sakti Nath Mukehrjee, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner due to deep rooted conspiracy against the petitioner he was transferred to Kolkata head office. After seven days he was again transferred to the service branch of the Kolkata. According to Mr. Mukherjee, though the petitioner was appointed to discharge the function relating Core Banking Soolution Net working of the respondent bank, he was transferred to a service branch having no function relating to Networking service of the respondent bank.;