ALLAHABAD BANK OFFICERS ASSOCIATION Vs. ALLAHABAD BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant No. 2 Dayal Dass Khanna, joined the Allahabad Bank (Respondents No. 1) as a Clerk on 24-7-1946. He was promoted as an Officer on 15-9-1967 and his further promotions from Scale I to Scale II and Scale II to Scale III in the Officers' Cadre were on 1-1-1976 and 1-10-1977 respectively. On 15-8-1979 he was elected as a General Secretary of Allahabad Bank Officers Association (Appellant No. 1), a registered trade union duly recognised by the Bank. In November 1982 he was considered for further promotion from Scale III to Scale IV but was denied promotion because he was found lacking in potential. In March 1984 a Special Committee was constituted under Regulation 19 of the Allahabad Bank (Officers) Services Regulations, 1979 to review the cases of 20 Officers, including Appellant No. 2, for recommending whether they should be retired earlier or allowed to serve till the age of superannuation. The Committee unanimously recommended compulsory retirement of Appellant No. 2 and the Chairman and Managing Director of the Bank agreeing with the said recommendation passed an order on May 18, 1984 for compulsorily retiring Appellant No. 2. By an order of the same date passed by the Bank Appellant No. 2 was retired with effect from 24-5-1984.

(2.) The appellants challenged that order by filing a writ petition in the Madhya Pradesh High Court. It was challenged mainly on ground that it casts a stigma on the character and dignity of Appellant No. 2 and, therefore, in reality it is an order of punishment which could have been passed under the Allahabad Bank Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 after holding a regular department enquiry and as no such enquiry was held it is illegal and void. The order was also challenged on the grounds that it was arbitrary and made fide. The High Court rejected all the contentions and dismissed the writ petition.

(3.) In view of the findings recorded by the High Court and the reasons given in support thereof the learned counsel for the appellants has rightly not pressed the other contentions which were raised before the High Court and, therefore, the only question which we have to consider in this appeal is whether the order of compulsory retirement casts a stigma on Appellant No. 2. The learned counsel submitted that the High Court has committed an error in holding that it does not. It is not in dispute that the letter dated May 18, 1984 is the only order of compulsory retirement served upon appellant No. 2. The material part of it reads as under: