BANK OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. OM PARKASH MALVALIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Very interesting question has been raised in this appeal, namely (i) whether the appellant bank could dismiss the respondent from its service without holding domestic enquiry merely on his being convicted by a cirminal Court ? (ii) Could the bank invoke Clause 19.3 (b) of the Bipartite Settlement read with Section 10(l)(d) of Banking Regulation Act, 1949 for imposing a penalty of dismissal ? (iii) Can the Civl Court Banking Regulation Act, 1949 for imposing a penalty grant declaration enforcing a contract ? and finally (iv) whether due to the grant of 'probation the respondent is protected' from the "disqualification" under Section 12 of the Probation of Oftenders Act, 1958 ?

(2.) To appreciate the points raised in this appeal, we may look to relevant facts necessary for the determination of the same. The respondent herein was appointed as Peon in the Bank of Maharashtra (appellant herein) on 7th June, 1972. Thereafter he was promoted as Daftri. On 29th June 1977 he was arrested in a case under Section 110/112 and convicted under Section 117 of the Bombay Police Act. He was convicted and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 20.00 . The revisional Court granted him the benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act. His sentence was conveited to one of anonition. In the meantime, the Bank on the basis of his conviction in that criminal case under the Act dismissed him from service. This according to Bank was in terms of the Bipartite Settlement, 1966 read with Section 10(1 )(b) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. The charge against the respondent was that he in drunken amonition. In the meantime, the Bank on the basis of his convicwith his superiors in the Bank premises. Before the Magistrate he pleaded guilty. Accordingly he was convicted and fined Rs. 20.00 His medical examination report showed that he had consumed liquor but was not intoxicated. He misbehaved in the office during working hours.

(3.) After his conviction, the appellant reiving on the provisions of Clause 19.3(b) of the Bipartite Settlement read with Section 10(l)(b) of the Banking Regulation Act, dismissed him from service without holding departmental enquiry. Respondent felt aggrieved. He filed a civil suit seking declaration that his dismissal from service was bad as no departmental enquiry was conducted and that he had not incurred any disqualification to continue in service after he was granted benefit of Probation of Offenders Act. He should be deemed to be in service. The said suit was dismissed. Against dismissal the responent heie in. filed an appeal. The First Appellate Court accepted his appeal. It is against this order of the First Appellate Court dated 14th November, 1994 that the present appeal has been preferred by the Bank thereby raising the above legal points.