VEERAPPA GADIGEPPA KONNUR Vs. BUAPUR GRAMEENA BANK BIJAPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question that arises for consideration in this writ appeal is, whether the use of the words 'detrimental to the interests of the Bank' can be construed as a stigma on a probationer whose probation was terminated without extension.

(2.) THE facts that have culminated in the filing of the writappeal, are The appellant-Veeranna was appointed as a Probationary officer in the respondent-Bank on 3-8-1984 with effect from 1-1-1985. His probation was terminated in terms of Regulation 8 (1) and 8 (3) of Staff Service Regulations, 1983. On being terminated, the appellant filed an appeal to the Board of directors, which was dismissed. To quash (1) the order of termination, (2) the order of rejection of the appeal by the Board, and (3) two memos dated 3-6-1986 and 2-9-1986 wherein he was called upon to reimburse a sum of Rs. 2,000/-, which is said to have been misappropriated by him, he filed the writ petition. The contention of the appellant that the use of the word 'detrimental' in the order of termination cast a stigma on him, was rejected by the learned Single Judge of this Court; but, in respect of the other two claims Annexures-F and G, no argument was advanced before the learned Single Judge, who, however, held that in view of non-denial by the appellant of such allegations, the appellant cannot object to recovery made under annexure-G and rejected those prayers also.

(3.) THE only point urged before us is that the words found in the memorandum, which is the order of termination, amount to a stigma and consequently the order of termination should be quashed.