- (1.) The petitioner in this writ petition is challenging the order of his termination from services, by way of punishment dated 4th May, 2007, as contained in Annexure 5 to the memo of petition, mainly on the ground that without holding any inquiry and without there being any inquiry report and without there being any second show cause notice, services of the petitioner have been brought to an end, on the alleged ground of absentism for the period running from 10th December, 2006 to 7th April, 2007. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that initially the petitioner was working as a Class IV employee in Daltonganj Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. with effect from 3rd February, 1979. The said Bank having gone in liquidation, services of the petitioner were absorbed in Dumka Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. as a Class IV employee by an order dated 20th March, 2006, which is at Annexure 2 to the memo of petition. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner joined the services at Dumka Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. and worked up to 5th December, 2006 and thereafter, applied for leave from 6th December, 2006 up to 9th December, 2006. The leave was sanctioned by the respondents. Thereafter, the petitioner became sick and, therefore, he could not join the services at Dumka Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. The aforesaid facts have been stated in paragraph no. 9 of the memo of petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in the reply, for the sake of denial, the denial is placed on record, but the fact remains that the petitioner was sick from 10th December, 2006 onwards. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that without holding any inquiry, without giving any inquiry report and without giving any second show cause notice for the quantum of punishment, straightway the services of the petitioner have been brought to an end. Thus, there is violation of the principles of natural justice and, therefore, let the matter be remanded by quashing the order of punishment, which is dated 4th May, 2007 at Annexure 5 to the memo of petition and after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, the action may be taken, if the respondent-Bank is so choosing. The petitioner has worked from the year, 1979 onwards honestly, sincerely, diligently and to the satisfaction of the respondents. Previously also never any misconduct has been committed by the petitioner. Spotless is the record of petitioner's service career.
(2.) Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that a detailed counter affidavit has been filed and time and again the petitioner was given notice, which are at Annexure B.C. C/1 as well as Annexure D to the counter affidavit for resuming the duties, but the petitioner has not remained present for joining the duties at Dumka Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. and, therefore, the services of the petitioner have rightly been brought to an end, without holding any inquiry. Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank has relied upon Rule 52 of the Bylaws of the Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Dumka and submitted that Board of Directors have the power to terminate the services of any employee, even without holding inquiry. This argument has categorically been denied by the learned counsel for the petitioner, who has submitted that there cannot be such power, plenary in nature, vested in the employer to terminate the services of the employee, without holding any inquiry.
(3.) Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I hereby quash and set aside the order, passed by respondent no. 3 i.e. Managing Director, Dumka Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Dumka, dated 4th May, 2007, which is at Annexure 5 to the memo of petition, mainly for the following facts and reasons: (i) The petitioner was wonting as a Class IV employee, initially in Daltonganj Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. with effect from 3rd February, 1979. The said Bank having gone in liquidation, ultimately the services of the petitioner were absorbed in Dumka Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. and the petitioner was given appointment by letter dated 20th March, 2006, which is at Annexure 2 to the memo of petition (Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the correct date is 24th March, 2006, as per Annexure 2). (ii) Be that as it may, the fact remains that the services of the petitioner were absorbed by Dumka Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. and thereafter the petitioner worked up to the month of November, 2006 and thereafter, he applied for leave from 6th December, 2006 to 9th December, 2006 and the leave was sanctioned by the respondent-Bank. (iii) It appears that thereafter controversial period starts, since the petitioner submits that because of sickness he could not join the services and the respondent-Bank submitted that there was unauthorized absentism by the petitioner for the period, running from 10th December, 2006 till the date of termination of the services of the petitioner i.e. up to 4th May, 2007. Ground of sickness is stated in paragraph no. 9 of the memo of writ petition, winch has been denied in the counter affidavit by the respondents. (iv) It further appears from tire facts of the case that without holding any inquiry and without there being any inquiry report and without there being any second show cause notice to the petitioner, services of the petitioner have been terminated vide order dated 4th May, 2007. This is not permissible in the eyes of law.;