B.L. GUPTA Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, Shri B. L. Gupta, was employed as an Accountant in the Punjab National Bank. He had completed 57 years of age on Feb. 17, 1977 and was on extension upto Feb. 16, 1978. He had sought a second extension which was refused by letter dated Dec. 5, 1977 (Annexure 'F' to the petition) on the ground that his efficiency had been impaired. The relevant portion of the said letter is as under :

(2.) The relevant facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are that the petitioner on promotion as an Accountant in March, 1976 was working at Branch Office of the Punjab' National Bank at Bulandshahr w.e.f. March 1976. Thereafter, he was posted at Kashipur Branch office in Nov., 1976 where the Manager, Shri K N. Tandon, it is alleged, had written to the Regional Manager at Meerut seeking transfer of the petitioner from that branch. It is contended that as he was not successful in getting him transferred, Shri Tandon started harassing the petitioner by issuing memos and charge-sheets to him. Before the petitioner completed 57 years of age on Feb. 17, 1977, the proposal for extension of his service had to be forwarded by Shri Tandon to the Regional Manager, Meerut. According to the petitioner, this was not done, although he had sent his medical fitness report in Nov., 1976 as required by the Staff Departmental Circular No. 641 dated May 6. 1976. Shri Tandon. it is further alleged, forwarded the proposal only on the asking of the Regional Manager, Meerut. This proposal was accepted and accordingly the first extension was granted to the petitioner. It is the petitioner's case that thereafter Shri Tandon got issued a charge-sheet on Sept. 9, 1977 on the basis of the various memos which he had issued earlier By the said charge-sheet (Annexure 'D' to the petition) the petitioner was asked to show-cause as to why disciplinary proceedings should not be taken against him, besides retiring him for not discharging his duties efficiently and for adopting non-co-operative and negligent attitude towards the Bank's work and clientage. The petitioner submitted his reply dated Oct. 22, 1977 denying some of the allegations while justifying his actions regarding the other allegations. By the impugned letter dated Dec. 5, 1977, noted earlier, the Bank authorities decided not to grant further extension to the petitioner and decided to retire him from the Bank's service w.e f. Feb. 17, 1978. Further, by letter dated Dec. 26, 1977 the petitioner was informed that the disciplinary authority, after considering his reply dated Oct. 22, 1977 to the charge-sheet, had awarded the punishment of "warning".

(3.) The order of retirement has been challenged on four grounds. Mr. K. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended first that the order in terms costs stigma on the petitioner and, therefore, amounts to removal in contravention of statutory provisions ; secondly that the petitioner had a right to continue in the employment of the bank till he attained the age of 60 years and, therefore, he could be retired compulsorily only after instituting disciplinary proceedings; thirdly that the disciplinary proceedings having been instituted against the petitioner which eventually culminated in award of warning, his retirement was motivated and, therefore, liable to be quashed and fourthly that in view of the grant of first extension the earlier allegations of misconduct against the petitioner were deemed to have been withdrawn and refusal to grant to second extension on these very allegations was mala fide in law.