A.P. Chowdhri, J. - (1.) REGULAR Second Appeal No. 330 of 1986 alongwith cross objection No. 23 -C of 1986 and Regular Second Appeal No. 331 of 1986 alongwith cross objection No. 22 -C of 1986 arise out of common facts and questions of law and are being disposed of by this judgment.
(2.) BRIEF facts giving rise to these Regular Second Appeals are these. Shayam Kumar Moudgil, Appellant, in Regular Second Appeal No. 330 of 1986 and Roshan Lal in Regular Second Appeal Mo. 331 of 1986 joined State Bank of India (for short 'the Bank') as Godown Keeper in the year 1958 and 1956 respectively. On 14th March, 1963 the Chief Development Officer of the Bank lodged an FIR with the special police establishment against one Dharam Pal - Puri under Sections 120 -B, 420, 467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. The case was investigated and a charge -sheet for the aforesaid offences was put in Court of the Special Magistrate, Punjab, Patiala, against the two Appellants in addition to Dharm Pal Puri. The case was tried and the Appellants were convicted by the Special Judicial Magistrate, Patiala on 5th June, 1978. They were sentenced to imprisonment till rising of Court and a fine of Rs. 1000 each under Sections 120 -B and 420 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code. The Appellants appeal against the conviction and sentence was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala on 15th October, 1979. The Appellants filed a revision. The convection of the Appellants was maintained by order dated 19th December, 1979. The order of sentence was, however, set aside and the Appellants were directed to be released on probation under Section 4 of the probation of offenders Act for a period of one year. During the period that F.I.R, was registered till decision of the revision petition, the Appellants continued working in the Bank initially at Ludhiana and later on at other station. From the post of Godown Keeper they were entrusted higher responsibilities and their last posting was official Incharge. In December, 1981 the Regional Manager of the Bank, Defendant No. 2, served a notice on the Appellants to show cause why they should not be dismissed from service in accordance with the provisions of Section 10 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 and the relevant provisions of the Sastry Award as modified by the Desai Award. The Appellants submitted a detailed reply. By order dated 8th September, 1982 the Appellants were dismissed by Defendant No. 2. The dismissal was challenged by the Appellants by filing two separate suits in the Court of Sub Judge 1st Class, Ludhiana. Various grounds were taken to assail the dismissal order. Reference to the same will be made wherever necessary. The Appellants case in the main was that the order of dismissal was null and void and they prayed for a declaration that the order of dismissal being a nullity, they continued to be in service of the Bank and were entitled to all the benefits of being in service. The suits were contested. It was pleaded on behalf of the Defendants that suit for declaration seeking to enforce personal service was not maintainable in view of the provisions of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The jurisdiction of the Civil Court was disputed as the rights sought to be enforced arose out of the Sastry Award. The jurisdiction of the Court at Ludhiana was denied. The other material averments were also traversed. The learned trial court framed the following issues: 1. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to declaration prayed for ? OPP. 2. Whether Civil court has no jurisdiction to decide present suit ? OPD. 3. Relief. An additional issue was framed by the trial Court which reads as under: Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD.
(3.) ALL the issues were decided in favour of the Plaintiffs with the result that the Plaintiffs suit was decreed with costs. by the learned trial Court. The Bank preferred an appeal which was allowed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, by order dated 10th October, 1985. The learned Additional District Judge held that the Civil Court had jurisdiction and that Section 10 of the Banking Regulation Act did not apply to the State Bank of India as the Said Bank had not been incorporated under the Companies Act. It was further held that Section 12 of the probation of Offenders Act did not remove the disqualification attaching to a conviction and that suit for declaration on the facts of the case was not maintainable. The learned Additional District. Judge reversed the finding of the learned trial court on Issue No. 1 and allowed the appeal with the result that the Plaintiffs' suits were dismissed. The present appeals have been preferred by the Plaintiffs against the said order. Cross objections have been filed by the Bank.;