G B KANUGA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner G.B. Kanuga entered the services of the Bank of Baroda Ltd. by an agreement for a period of two years from 14-4-1965 as a site engineer in Delhi. The formal agreement was executed on 9-12-1965. It provided that if the Managing Director, or any other official of the Bank for the time being in authority shall be of opinion (which shall be conclusive) that the site engineer has been guilty of inter alia gross misconduct or insubordination or by reason of any events (which may have happtened before or after he entered the Bank's service), it is undesirable to continue him in the service of the Bank. they shall be at liberty forthwith to determine this argeement. A letter was issued to him by the Deputy General Manager of the Bank placing him on probation for a period of two years from the date of joining. But he was confirmed on 14-10-1965.

(2.) The Bank then framed rules called "the Bank of Baroda Officers Service Rules" in the year 1969. Upon nationalisation, as per section 19(3) of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, these rules until new regulations are framed are the Rules which govern the service conditions of the officers of the Bank. According to Rule 8.1 of the said rules, every officer shall serve the Bank honestly, faithfully, diligently and abide by the Rules and Regulations of the Bank. They also specified certain acts of misconduct, the relevant two conditions with which we are most likely concerned are acts subversive of good conduct and discipline and wilfull breach of rules, regulations and procedure of the Bank. Rule 8.2 provides that an enquiry may be held against an officer who commits any act of misconduct in which a charge sheet and an opportunity to be heard in defence shall be given and the Bank shall follow the rules of natural justice in the conduct of such enquiry. If as a result of such enquiry, a person is found guilty of misconduct, penalty prescribed in Rule 8.3 can be imposed. No such procedure was followed in the case of the petitioner. His services were terminated on 11-10-1973 by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director with immediate effect upon payment of three months' pay and allowance in lieu of notice. It is against that order that the present petition was filed.

(3.) The circumstances which have led to the dismissal of the petioner are as follows. In spite of local oposition, he was granted sick leave for a month with effect from 1-9-1971, by the Industrial Adviser of the Bank. It appears that he continuad to be ill thereafter. The petitioner got a certificate on 17-3-72 from a private medical practitioner, Dr. J.K. Tuli, certifying that he was fit to join duty, but since he was suffering from hypertension and coronary insufficiency, he was advised light work and avoid excessive mental or physical stress. Yet it seems he was not allowed to join. The Assistant Regional Manager by his letter dated 28-3-1972 informed the petitioner that he has not recovered completely from his illness and asked him to resume duties only after he was fully fit and that he will be treated on leave during the period of his absence. But the petitioner by his letter of 7-4-1972 insisted that he should be allowed to join duty and allotted light work. On 10-4-^972, he was transferred and directed to report at the Central Office, Bombay. The petitioner then went on leave with effect from 14-4-1972. He alleges, he went to Bombay on 5-5-1973 and asked for payment of salary from December.