P.K. Lohra, J. - (1.) INVOKING extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court enshrined under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner in this writ petition has assailed the impugned order dt. 29.01.2013 (Annex. 4) passed by the second respondent. Succinctly stated, the factual matrix of this case is that the petitioner at the inception of his service career was appointed as Agriculture Officer (Scale -I) on 04.01.1988 with the erstwhile Bank of Rajasthan Limited. On successful completion of probation period of two years, the petitioner was allotted Permanent Account No. A -1138. While in service of the Bank of Rajasthan Limited, the petitioner was promoted in the cadre of Agriculture Officer (Scale -II) in the year 1995 and in the year 2005 -06 he has availed yet another promotion in the cadre of Agriculture Officer (Scale -III). As per averments in the writ petition, right from the inception of his service career, the petitioner is discharging his duties with utmost satisfaction. The Bank of Rajasthan subsequently amalgamated into the respondent ICICI Bank w.e.f. 12.08.2010 by invoking Section 44 -A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1949'). As a consequence of amalgamation, the petitioner became employee of the respondent ICICI Bank. After amalgamation, the respondents posted the petitioner as Manager -II at Jorhat Branch, Assam, and thereafter he was transferred as Branch Manager, Mandore Krishi Mandi Branch of the Bank at Jodhpur. While serving at Mandore Krishi Mandi Branch at Jodhpur, order impugned was issued whereby services of the petitioner were terminated. The order to this effect was passed on 29.01.2013 (Annex. 4).
(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Nitin Trivedi has urged that the respondent ICICI Bank is carrying out the banking operations in adherence of the Act of 1949 and the entire functioning of the Bank is under the Supervisory control of Reserve Bank of India. With these contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that status of respondent ICICI Bank Limited is akin to that of a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. To substantiate this contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a decision of this Court dt. 2nd of April 2008 in case of Hadmana Ram & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2062 of 2007). The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed heavy reliance on the last paragraph of the aforesaid judgment. The complete text of last paragraph of the decision is reproduced as under: So far as the maintainability of the writ petition against the company is concerned, it is a petition not against the respondent -company alone, but against the Government authorities also who all were parties to Annexure -1 which is required to enforce Annexture -1. Thus, taking note of this fact, coupled with the fact that in Annexure -1, even SDO was made Chairman of the Committee, necessarily this writ petition is not against the company itself as the Government and authorities are also parties to the writ petition, as otherwise, mentioned in Annexure -1, thus objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondents regarding maintainability of the writ petition is not sustainable and the said objection is rejected. In view of the directions and observations made above, necessary compliance of the order would be made by the respondents within the time -frame given above. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of accordingly.
(3.) WHILE assailing the impugned order Annex. 4, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the order has been passed in gross violation of the principles of audi -alteram -partem, and as such the same is not sustainable. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the order impugned is stigmatic inasmuch as from the recitals contained in the order it is crystal clear that the authority has recorded a finding that the respondent Bank has lost confidence in the petitioner. The precise contention of the petitioner is that the order is stigmatic and before passing the said order neither the petitioner was charge -sheeted nor any disciplinary enquiry was conducted and therefore the order is bad in law and deserves to be quashed and set aside.;