DINESH K BATRA Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against the order dated 13 October 1990 in imposing punishment of warning against the petitioner under para 19.6(b) of the Bipartite Settlement 1966 as amended. The petitioner also seeks further relief in pursuance of quashing of that order as may be ordered by this Court.

(2.) The petitioner, a clerk in respondent bank, appeared in the Associated Examination in May 1987 held by the Indian Institute of Bankers. The petitioner, it appeared, indulged in malpractice and used unfair means in the examination. The Institute debarred the petitioner from appearing in any examination upto 31 May 1990. This was as per rules of the Institute. On receipt of a communication received from the Institute the respondent bank served a charge sheet on the petitioner on 27 May 1989 as the use of unfair means in the examination tentamounted to gross misconduct in terms of clause 19.5(o) of the aforesaid Bipartite Settlement. After enquiry though the Enquiry Officer was of the opinion that the petitioner was not guilty of having indugled in malpractice the Disciplinary Authority disagreed, and after due opportunity to the petitioner, imposed punishment of warning in terms of para 19.6(b) of the Bipartite Settlement. This the petitioner, as mentioned above, has challenged. The petitioner also explained that he was not allowed to take examination again though the time bar imposed by the Institute had expired. The case of the Bank had been that since the petitioner could not be considered for promotion for two years from the date of award of punishment, he could take the examination and that would be part of consideration for promotion to the next post of the Junior Management Grade Scale I.

(3.) A preliminary objection has been raised at the outset that the impunged order is appealable and the petitioner did not avail of that remedy and so the petition is haired as the petitioner did not make use of an efficacious alternative remedy. To this the petitioner has replied in effect that he was unaware of any such provision. This is not acceptable to us. However, an examination was again held by the Institute on 28 June 1992 and on the basis of an interim order made by this Court the petitioner was allowed to sit in the examination but it was directed that his result would not be declared. The examination was for promotion from clerk to officer in Junior Management Grade Scale I. Since the examination was taken by the petitioner under an interim order of this Court we think we should decide this matter at this stage, and need not decide the question if the petitioner should have filed an appeal before coming to this Court. Ordinarily, court,does not interfere till the petitioner has exhausted all the remedies available to him under the law. However, all proceedings in this case will not be taken as a precedent for any other or similar case.