H SURENDRA SHENOY Vs. SYNDICATE BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WRIT petition is by an officeremployee of the Syndicate Bank who has been eased out of service under Regulation 19 of the Syndicate Bank (Officers') Service Regulations, 1979 in terms of the impugned order dated 21-10-2003, copy produced as Annexure-G to the writ petition, who has questioned the legality of this order. Petitioner has sought for quashing of the same on the premise that the petitioner was not given an effective opportunity either to represent against the order or his appeal against the order has been properly considered; that the Management has virtually passed the order behind the back of the petitioner by withholding information from the petitioner; that a committee which has been constituted for the purpose of examining the case of the petitioner for the purpose of Regulation 19 had not been properly constituted; that the committee has gone beyond its brief by taking into account extraneous matters and therefore, the order should be quashed.

(2.) IT is also incidentally contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order is virtually one which stigmatises the petitioner and therefore, not giving proper opportunity in terms of the service conditions of the Bank applicable to the officer-employees of the Bank is violative of the Syndicate Bank Officer-Employees' (Discipline and appeal) Regulations, 1976.

(3.) ONE another ground of attack on the impugned order is, while the provision itself stipulates three months notice to be issued to such employees, it has not been complied with, in the present case.