I.P. MAHENDRU Vs. NEW BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. I.P. Mahendru, hereinafter referred to as the petitioner, has been working as Assistant General Manager with New Bank of India, respondent No. 1. On 7.8.90, several union leaders forcibly entered the petitioner's chamber and hurled filthy abuses and unparliamentary language. The petitioner lodged a written complaint to the General Manager (Personnel) and sought action to be taken against the erring-employees so that disciplinary action should be taken against them, but respondents 2 and 3 persuaded the petitioner to initiate the action against the erring employees himself. On showing his inability to do so on the ground that he being the complainant cannot be a judge in his own cause, the petitioner was threatened and humiliated by respondent No. 2 and rather he was served with a show cause notice dated 20.8.90 which was followed by a charge-sheet and was suspended w.e.f. 1st Oct., 1990 for not initiating action against the erring employees. The enquiry did not make any progress and he preferred an appeal under the rules to the Board of Directors of the respondent bank. The said appeal was decided vide order dated 19.7.91 and the petitioner was informed that the suspension corder of the petitioner is revoked by the Board of Directors. The Managing Committee's resolution dated 18.7.1991 reads as under :

(2.) That the said resolution passed by the Board of Directors was, however, communicated to the petitioner vide memo dated 19.7.91, which was not prepared in accordance with the resolution of the Board of Directors. In this memo communicated to the petitioner, it has been mentioned that the Managing Committee of the Board had decided to revoke suspension of the petitioner but directed that the petitioner shall not be entitled to any other benefits other than the subsistence allowance paid/payable to him for the period of suspension and that enquiry against him shall continue and that on revocation of the suspesion the disciplinary authority may pass necessary orders about the posting of Shri Mahendru. His order of posting was made as Assistant General Manager, Regional Office, Lucknow and that the order of revocation was made conditional to the effect that it will take effect from the day when he takes charge in Lukhnow.

(3.) The petitioner has challenged this memo allegedly signed by the disciplinary authority on various grounds by filing this writ petition and he made allegations of mala fides against respondent No. 2 Mr. J. Sethi, Executive Director and Mr. A.R. Sethi General Manager (Personnel) who had issued this memo in contravention of the resolution passed by the Managing Committee of the Board.