P L BHARDWAJ Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) P.L. Bhardwaj, a confirmed Staff Officer, Grade III in the State Bank of India has assailed in this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution the order of the Bank dated June 17, 1970 terminating his services under rule 18 of the State Bank of India (Officers & Assistants) Service Rules, 1957.

(2.) The petitioner graduated from Delhi University in the year 1965. After selection by the Central Recruitment Board in 1966 he was appointed as a Probationary Officer by the State Bank of India (hereafter called "the Bank"). At the meeting of the Executive Committee of the Central Board of the Bank held on October 30, 1968, he was confirmed in this post with effect from October 1, 1968 under the State Bank of India (Officers and Assistants) Service Rules (hereafter called "the Rules") and was selected to attend an Intermediate Course of Probationary Officers at the Staff Training College (State Bank of India) Hyderabad. While at the training College at Hyderabad, on the New Year's Eve Party, held on the night of December 31, 1968, an incident occurred involving breach of the General Instructions of the College in which, along with others, he was stated to be involved. In consequence, on January 2, 1969, the Principal of the College took action in the matter. Nothing turns on the details of the incident for purposes of decision of this petition and the same need not be set out in any detail. By letter dated January 3, 1969, the Principal 0f the training College terminated the training of the petitioner and one other trainee, A.K. Dutta and directed both of them to return to the local Head Office of the Bank at New Delhi and report to the Secretary and Treasurer. On January 9, 1969, a representation was made by the All India State Bank of India Supervising Staff Federation, Bombay, protesting against the premature termination of the training of these trainees. On January 23, 1969, the Bank issued a notice to the petitioner requiring him to submit his explanation for the alleged contravention of rules 11 and 14 of the General Instructions of the Hyderabad College while under training at that College. On February 4, 1969, the petitioner submitted his explanation. On March 29, 1969, the All India State Bank of India Supervising Staff Federation, Bombay, communicated to the Chairman of the Bank, Central Office, Bombay, a resolution passed by the Federation on March 25, 1969, condemning the action of the Principal of the Training College, Hyderabad, in sending back these two trainees to their circles before the completion of their course. By letter ated Aprild 21, 1969, the petitioner was required by the Bank to report on April 23, 1969 at 11 A.M. to Shri B.K. Mukerjee, Deputy Secretary and Treasurer, State Bank of India, Hyderabad. Thereafter, by letter dated June 20, 1970, the petitioner was informed by the Managing Director of the Bank that the Executive Committee of the Central Board had decided in the meeting held on June 17, 1970 that his services be terminated in terms of rule 18 of the Rules. The petitioner has challenged this decision of the Executive Committee on grounds mentioned in the petition.

(3.) In the counter filed on behalf of the Bank, it is admitted that the petitioner joined services of the Bank and after completion of his training was confirmed as Staff Officer Grade III with effect from October 1, 1968. It is also admitted that he was selected to attend Intermediate Course of Probationary Officers at the Staff Training College (State Bank of India), Hyderabad. After setting out details of the incident at Hyderabad and the part played by the petitioner therein the respondents in the counter stated that after receiving the report of the incident, in order to be informed of its details, the Managing Director of the Bank appointed Shri Mukerjee to investigate the matter and on receipt of his report the Bank, "though concerned about the conduct of the petitioner in allowing himself to be associated with an unsavoury incident reflecting on his conduct as an Officer of the Bank, did not take any further action in the matter". But on an overall consideration of the record of the "Probationary Officer" decided to terminate his services under rule 18 of the Rules. Regarding merits, the counter further stated that the Bank was not an authority amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court and the service Rules framed by it including rule 18 in pursuance of which the services of the petitioner were terminated were not statutory rules and were nothing more than the model terms of the contractual agreement of service between the Bank and its employees. Rule 18 which authorised the Bank to terminate the services of any employee other than a Probationary Assistant, on giving him three calendar month's previous notice in writing or three months substantive salary in lieu of notice irrespective of the fact whether the employee was on probation or confirmed, was stated to be nothing more than a term reciting the normal "incidence of service".