PARIMALA Vs. BANKING SERVICE RECRUITMENT BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, in this petition, is a former employee in the services of the State Bank of Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as "the Bank"). In this petition, she has called in question the correctness of the order dated 4th December, 1999 passed by the Assistant General Manager of the Bank, third respondent terminating her services; and sought for a direction to respondents 2 to 4 to regularise her services in the Bank.

(2.) The facts leading to this petition lie in a narrow compass and they may be briefly stated as hereunder:

(3.) Sri V.T. Rayaraddi, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, challenging the correctness of the impugned order, made three submissions. Firstly, he submitted that though the order Annexure-E purports to be an order of termination of the services of the petitioner from the employment of the Bank on the ground that during the probationary period, she has failed to discharge her duties satisfactorily and failed to attain the standard of efficiency expected of her as a Clerk in the Bank, the said order of termination, in law, amounts to removal of the petitioner from service without an enquiry and, therefore, the said order is vitiated. The learned Counsel submitted that the third respondent having initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner on the allegation of certain misconduct pointed out in the charge-sheet issued to the petitioner, having found that there was no substance in the allegations made against the petitioner, has adopted a short-cut method to get rid of the petitioner from the services of the Bank on the ground that her services were not satisfactory during the period of probation. According to the learned Counsel, the sequence of events which ultimately culminated in the passing of the impugned order, and the stand taken by the Bank in the statement of objections, would make it clear that the impugned order is not an order of discharge of the service of a probationer simpliciter, but was an order made by way of penalty for the alleged misconduct pointed out against the petitioner without conducting an enquiry. He pointed out that solely with a view to make out a case that the services of the petitioner was not satisfactory, during the pendency of the enquiry, communications dated 7th November, 1999 and 16th November, 1999 were issued to the petitioner without any justification pointing out certain deficiencies in the performance of duties by the petitioner. Sri Raddi further submitted that as a result of the feud between the rival groups in the Raichur Mahila Co-operative Bank Limited, the petitioner also came to be implicated in a complaint filed for the deficiencies in the discharge of loan to SC/ST people; and in that connection, unjustifiably she was detained and sent to judicial custody during the period from 9th August, 1999 to 17th August, 1999. He pointed out that materials on record also show that during the relevant time, the petitioner had to undergo terrible trauma and mental agony; that she was carrying during that period, and as a result of her detention in judicial custody and trauma she had undergone, she suffered miscarriage and therefore a discretion should have been exercised extending the period of probation of the petitioner. He pointed out that there are instances where the Bank has extended the period of probation and the petitioner is picked up for hostile discrimination by not extending the period of probation. He also submitted that there is no truth in the allegations made in the FIR. He further pointed out that when the petitioner has passed M.Com. in first class and B.Com. in second class and Pre-University in first class and had the experience of working in a Co-operative Bank for a period over five years, the observation made in the impugned order that she was not able to discharge her duties to the standard excepted of a probationer in service, is totally baseless; and it has been made totally on account of extraneous and irrelevant considerations and it is mala fide both on facts and in law. Secondly, he submitted that the impugned order is liable to be quashed on the ground that the said order attaches stigma to the career of the petitioner. It is his submission that the observation made in the order that she had failed to attain the standard of efficiency expected of her as a Clerk in the services of the Bank, despite pointing out her deficiencies both orally and in writing, amounts to attaching stigma to her reputation. Thirdly, he submitted that since the petitioner was appointed as a Typist (English) by the Recruitment Board and was allotted to the Bank as a Typist (English), it was not permissible to terminate the services of the petitioner on the ground that the discharge of duties of the petitioner was not upto the standard of efficiency expected of her as a Clerk in the services of the Bank merely because the appointment order issued by the second respondent shows that she was appointed as a Clerk/Cashier/ Typist. It is the submission of Sri Raddi that the assessment of the performance of the petitioner should have been made in her capacity as a Typist and not as a Clerk as she was selected as a Typist by the Recruitment Board. Finally, he submitted that since the memorandum of appointment as per Annexure-E, dated 7th June, 1999 was issued pursuant to order Annexure-C, it was not permissible for the third respondent, who is lower in rank than that of the 4th respondent, to terminate the services of the petitioner on the ground that the discharge of duties by the petitioner during the period of probation was not satisfactory. According to the learned Counsel, it was either the Chairman and the Managing Director of the Bank or at least the Deputy General Manager, 4th respondent who could have assessed the performance of the petitioner and if it was not satisfactory, to proceed to pass the order of termination of the petitioner; and since admittedly the same has not been done, the order impugned is liable to be quashed. Sri Raddi, in support of his submissions, relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of Dipti Prakash Banerjee v Satvendra Nath Base National Centre for Basic Sciences, Calcutta and Others, V.P. Ahuja v State of Punjab and Others, Samsher Singh v State of Punjab and Another and Anoop Jaiswal v Government of India and Another, and the decision of this Court in the case of Syed Hassan Ali v State of Mysore and Others.