Sudhamay Basu, J. - (1.) his appeal is from the judgment and order passed by D. Basu, J. dated the 8th of February, 1967 in Civil Revision No. 199 (W) of 1963 by which His Lordship made the Rule absolute and directed the appellants to cancel the impugned order contained in annexure (A) to the petition.
(2.) The respondent petitioner, K. M. Mukherjee, was appointed a Jerk of the Imperial Bank in March, 1948 by virtue of Section 7 of the state Bank of India Act, 1955. The respondent's service was transferred from the Imperial Bank to the State Bank of India. On the 18th of December, 1951 he was served with a notice to show cause on several charges while he was working in the pay office of the Dinhata Branch of the Bank at Coochbehar. After a departmental enquiry the petitioner was asked to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service. Eventually, on the 31st of December, 1962 the petitioner was dismissed from service by the Staff Superintendent of the State Bank who was empowered to take disciplinary action in terms of paragraph 52l(12) of an Award given by All India Industrial Tribunal presided over by P. Sastry and popularly known as Sastry Award. The said paragraph 521 (12) of the Sastry Award, to which tie Imperial Bank of India was a party, required that the Bank should decide which officer shall be empowered to take disciplinary action in case of each office. The Bank was also, required to make provisions for appeals against the orders passed in disciplinary matters. It was directed further by the said Award that the names of the officers or the body who were empowered to pass original orders or hear appeals should from time to time be published on the Bank's Notice Board. In the instant case the name of the Staff Superintendent with the status of a manager was notified in terms of the said provision. The order of dismissal was, however, challenged by the petitioner in a writ petition before this High Court. It was disposed of in his favour by D. Basu, J. as noted above.
(3.) The contentions of the petitioner before the Court below were first that the authority who appointed the petitioner was the Chief Accountant but the dismissal was by the Staff Superintendent who was an officer below the rank of the appointing authority; Secondly, that the enquiry was held in contravention of the principles of natural justice. The Court below held that the petitioner could not establish that he was appointed by the Chief Accountant. It, also, saw no merit in the second contention as the terms of the Award could not be enforced by a prerogative writ of Mandamus. There were again adequate alternative remedies available. The third submission was also negatived because the learned Judge thought that the rules of natural justice were not available unless the authority had quasi judicial obligation. As the Bank was not under any duty to proceed judicially there was no quasi judicial obligation.;