S. N. SHIRABADIGI Vs. BIJAPUR GRAMEENA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was discharged from service during the period of probation by Memorandum No. BGB/PER/OX/27/86 dated 27.10.1986 while he was working in the respondent Bank. The appellant filed an appeal against the said order before the competent authority. While the said appeal was not disposed of and was kept pending, he approached the High Court by filing a writ petition. In the first round, the writ petition was disposed of by the High Court directing the competent authority to dispose of the appeal expeditiously. After consideration, the appeal was dismissed. Thereafter, the appellant filed one more writ petition challenging the order of termination of his services. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and set aside the order of termination of services passed against the appellant, but, however, reserving liberty to the respondents to take appropriate decision against the appellant in accordance with law. Not satisfied and aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge the respondents filed a writ appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench of the High Court disposed of the appeal in view of the concession made by the learned counsel for the parties. The appeal was disposed of by awarding Rs. 50,000.00 to the appellant in full and complete settlement of his claim. The appellant, aggrieved by the said order, approached the High Court seeking review of the order. The review petition was dismissed. Under the circumstances, he is before us, in these appeals, challenging the said order of the Division Bench.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant urged that: (7) the learned counsel representing the appellant was not authorized to enter into compromise by making a concession which was the basis for disposal of the appeal by the Division Bench; and (2) the order of termination of the appellant was not simpliciter but was punitive and stigmatic.

(3.) We take the second point for consideration first. The order of termination contains reference to five letters relating to review of the performance of the appellant. The order of termination is made in terms of the Staff Service Regulations, 1983 of the Bank. The order is one, which reads as termination simpliciter. The learned counsel for the appellant, relying on the letters to which reference is made in the order of termination of services, strongly contended that certain statements made in those letters clearly indicate that the respondent Bank concluded against the appellant as to his certain misconduct; the material placed on record showed that the order of termination of services of the appellant was stigmatic and not simpliciter.