PUNJAB AND SIND BANK Vs. SAKATTAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent challenged the order of termination effected by means of striking out his name from the muster roll of the appellant-Bank by a writ petition filed in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The respondent had joined the service of the appellant-Bank at Gwalior on 18-4-1978 as Apprentice and was regularly appointed as Clerk-cum-Cashier with effect from 18-12-1978. He claimed that on account of very serious eye ailment he had been taking leave often and on and he had such ailment even in the year 1993-94 and after obtaining a fitness certificate from a doctor he submitted his joining report to the Branch Manager on 4-4-1994 which was not accepted by him and, therefore, he submitted an application to the higher authorities of the Bank. In the meanwhile, however, by a notice dated 12-9-1994 the respondent was asked to explain his unauthorised absence after the expiry of sanctioned leave. The respodnent, however, claimed to have appeared before the competent authority to permit him to join duty but no order was passed. On the other hand, an order dated 18-4-1994 came to be passed informing him of the termination of his services in the manner stated earlier. In answer to the writ petition filed the appellants justified their action by stating that the respondent after proceeding on leave for three days commencing on 16-8-1998 did not report for duty although communications dated September 4, 1993, December 17, 1993 and April 15, 1994 were sent to him and he was called upon to resume his duty. The appellants pleaded that the respondent had remained unauthorisedly absent for a period of 190 days and, therfore, made himself liable to be removed from the rolls of the Bank in terms of Para 17 of the Bipartite Settlement and Para 522 of the Sastri Award. The High Court took the view that the respondent had put in 16 years of service and his services could not have been dispensed with except after inquiry consistent with the principles of natural justice and the appellants action in terminating the services of the respondent is based on a misconduct in respect of which no inquiry has been held though it was imperative for the appellants to have served a charge-sheet to him with an opportunity to file his reply, to appoint an Inquiry Officer, to permit the respondent to adduce evidence in support of the allegations of misconduct and to give opportunity to him to refute such evidence. The High Court relied upon certain decisions of this Court. The High Court, therefore, declared that the order striking out the name of the respondent from the rolls of the Bank is a nullity due to the patent violation of the principles of natural justice and the appellants order also suffered from many defects such as non-application of mind to the matter. For the aforesaid reasons, the High Court quashed the orders made on 18-4-1994 and 12-9-1994, however, making it clear that it was open to the appellants to take action in accordance with the provisions of law and the principles of natural justice. As regards wages the High Court directed that appropriate application could be made to the appellants under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Hence this appeal.

(2.) Shri P. P. Rao, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellants, submitted that under clause XVI of IV Bipartite Settlement the appellants may put to an end to the services of the respondent even without an inquiry and this clause had come up for consideration before this Court in Syndicate Bank vs. General Secretary, Syndicate Bank Staff Association, (2000) 5 SCC 65, when on a similar charge a bank employee unauthorisedly absented himself from work for a period exceeding the prescribed limit of 90 days and the bank having srved a notice upon him requiring to submit his explanation to join work within the prescribed period of 30 days as otherwise he would be deemed to have retired, was held to be good and such action is not violative of principles of natural justice and, therefore, he submitted that the view taken by the High Court is not justified.

(3.) The learned counsel for the respondent, while supporting the view taken by the High Court, submitted that a workman should know the nature of the complaint or the accusation against him and should have opportunity to put forth his case in the absence of which there cannot be any fair or just decision on the matter. Even Syndicate Bank case, (supra), he submitted, was decided on the facts of that case and there is no similarity between two matters and hence he submitted that this appeal deserved to be dismissed.