- (1.) The petitioner was appointed as a clerk in the Head Office of the Imperial Bank in March, 1948. Under Section 7 of the State Bank of India Act, 1955, the petitioner's services were transferred from the Imperial Bank to the State Bank of India, and in 1961 he was transferred to the Dinhata Pay-Office in the district of Coochbehar. On the 18th December, 1961, he was suspended and on the 19th February, 1962, he was served with a notice to show cause on several charges. There was a departmental inquiry held on the charges on the 13th July, 1962, and on the 5th November, 1962, he was asked to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service. The order of dismissal was eventually passed on the para 521(5)(a) of the "Shastri Award", (Ann. A. p. 9(a) of the petition) that the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been brought on the following grounds: (1) That while the Appointing Authority of the petitioner was the Chief Accountant, he has been dismissed by the Staff Supdt. An officer below the rank of the Appointing Authority. (2) That the inquiry was held in contravention of the requirements of para 521 of the "Shastri Award." (3) That the impugned order was made in contravention of the principles of Natural Justice.
(2.) The contentions raised in the Affidavit-in-opposition inter alia, are : (a) that the State Bank of India is a company incorporated by statute and that since it does not cary out any public functions, the writ of mandamus cannot be issued against it. (b) That the inquiry was held in full compliance with the requirements of para 521 (10) (a) of the "Shastri Award". (c) That the punishing as well as the Appointing Authority of the petitioner was the State Bank of India and hence no irregularity was committed. (d) That there was no contravention of Natural Justice. (e) That the petitioner has alternative legal remedy and is not, accordingly, entitled to relief under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(3.) I. though I do not agree with the Respondents that a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution would not, in appropriate cases, lie against the State Bank of India, which is a statutory corporation set up by the State Bank of India Act, 1955, I am clearly of opinion that no such relief is available in the instant case on the ground of contravention of the provisions of the Award, for the following reasons: (a) The Petitioner's case is that in making the inquiry resulting in the impugned order, the Respondents have violated the requirements of para 521 of the Shastry Award (as approved by the Desai Award) under which the impugned order purports to have been made. These Awards. However, have no statutory force. The history of these Awards is to be found in the Introductory Chapter of the Report of the Desai Award. Shri Shastri, a retired Judge of the Madras High Court, was appointed an Industrial Tribunal, in 1952, under S. 7 of the Industrial Disputes Act and certain disputes were referred to that Tribunal for adjudication under S. 10 of that Act. The Award given by that Tribunal in 1953, is known as the "Shastry Award'. In 1960, A National Industrial Tribunal presided over by Desai J. of the Bombay High Court was State up by the Government of India, and several disputes relating to Banking Companies and their employees were referred to this Tribunal under S. 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Award given by this Tribunal in the year 1962 is known as the Desai Award. It modified and substituted the terms of the Shastry Award in certain respects, into the details of which it is not necessary to go into in the instant case.;