LAWS(SC)-1985-4-6

S A KINI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Decided On April 16, 1985
S.A.KINI Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition and the special leave petition are malicious and ill-motivated. But they have served one good purpose, namely, they have brought to light the undesirable activities of the petitioners themselves. We will have some harsh things to say about the petitioners in our judgment. In an attempt to malign the top management of the Canara Bank, they have exposed themselves and the allegations have boomeranged. The spider has been caught in its own web.

(2.) The first petitioner in the writ petition is S. A. Kini, Deputy General Secretary of the Canara Bank Officers' Association and the second petitioner is the Canara Bank Officers' Association. The respondents in the writ petition are the Union of India represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs, Banking Division, Canara Bank (a nationalised bank), the Chairman and Managing Director of Canara Bank and the General Manager of Canara Bank. The special leave petition is directed against an order of the High Court of Bombay dated October 21, 1982 dismissing a writ petition filed by the same petitioners as in the writ petition before us. The respondents to the petition for special leave are also the same as in the writ petition.

(3.) The principal allegation made by the petitioners in the writ petition filed in the Bombay High Court and repeated in this court is that the Chairman and Managing Director, the General Manager and the top officials of the Management of Canara Bank have been using their official position and authority to coerce the officers and staff of the Canara Bank to collect funds for the Canara Bank Relief and Welfare Society. Apart from seeking donations from customers, it is alleged that one of the principal modes of collecting funds was the sale of greeting cards by the officials of the bank to their customers. Each officer was allotted a certain quota and was compelled to sell his quota of cards to customers. The petitioners. further alleged that officers, who protested against the directive to sell greeting cards, were victimised by the bank, and officers, who were highly successful 'cardsellers' were given accelerated promotion over the heads of seniors. Thiruvengandam was cited as an instance of a victimised officer who was denied promotion while Annappa Pai was cited as an instance of an officer, who had benefited and who was allowed to leap over several senior officers and was promoted as a reward for his services by the sale of cards. The petitioners also alleged that the top management was also interested in collecting funds for