LAWS(KAR)-1983-1-5

SYNDICATE BANK Vs. P V NAYAK

Decided On January 21, 1983
SYNDICATE BANK Appellant
V/S
P.V.NAYAK Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order dated August 10, 1978 made by Rama Jois, J. allowing writ petition No. 1724 of 1975 filed by P.V. Nayak - the respondent To state briefly, the facts are these: On April 25, 1960, Sri. P.V. Nayak was appointed as a clerk on the establishment of the Syndicate Bank Ltd. He was confirmed in the said post with effect from March 25, 1961 . In 1070, the Syndicate Bank Ltd., was acquired by the Central Government by the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act 1970 with effect from 19th July, 1969, and was termed only as Syndicate Bank (called shortly as "the Bank). P.V. Nayak, the reafter was promoted as a special Assistant. Again he was found suitable for promotion to the cadre of officers in the competitive test on August 26, 1973. Accordingly by order dated October 17,1973, he was promoted to the cadre of Junior Officers. The order of promotion stated that he would be on probation for a period of one year and he would be governed by the Syndicate Bank Officers' (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1966 ("The Rules") and if he was not confirmed he would continue to be on probation. The order further stated:-

(2.) P.V. Nayak challenged the validity of the order of termination of his services in writ petition No. 1724 of 1975. The main grounds of attack in the writ petition are: (i) the Rule 36 was not applicable to his case who was on probation and rule 5 of the Rules alone was attracted; And (ii) That Rule 36 of the Rules confers arbitrary power on the Management to terminate the services of officers.

(3.) The Bank resisted the writ petition on the ground, among others, that the Syndicate Bank cannot be held to be state or other Authority within the scope of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and therefore the writ petition was not maintainable . The Bank had the power to terminate the services of the petitioner under rule 36 since it was of the opinion that continuance of the petitioner was not in the interest of the Bank.