B. GANAPATHY Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was an employee of the State Bank of Travancore. He climbed up the official ladder and came to the rung of Manager, A Grade Officer. On 10-12-1980, the 1st respondent Bank issued Ext. P2 memo intimating the petitioner about the disciplinary action proposed by it. The articles of charge and statement of imputations of misconduct were communicated to him, and he was asked to put forward his defence. The explanation dated 31-1-1981 submitted by the petitioner did not appear to be satisfactory to the Management. It therefore decided upon an enquiry against the petitioner. That decision was communicated to the petitioner under Ext. P3 dated 28-9-1981. The petitioner appears to have written a letter on 15-10-1981, apparently in relation to his retirement from service. The letter has not been produced in the original petition and its contents not even indicated in the statement of facts. The reply of the 1st respondent to that letter is Ext. P1 dated 27-11-1981. Para.2 and 3 of the letter which are relevant for the consideration of the contentions raised in the original petition, read:

(2.) The disciplinary proceedings were pursued thereafter. The petitioner raised a preliminary objection before the 3rd respondent - Enquiry Officer. The very legality of the continuance of the proceedings against the petitioner was challenged on the ground that the petitioner had already ceased to be an employee. The Enquiry Officer took the view that in terms of the Service Rules the petitioner continued to be in service for the purpose of the inquiry. The enquiry was thereafter adjourned to 21-1-1982. It was at this juncture that the petitioner approached this Court questioning the correctness of the view taken by the Enquiry Officer and seeking to stop the enquiry proceedings against him. Though the counter affidavits were filed in 1982 itself that of the 1st respondent on 13-10-1982, and that of the 2nd respondent on 1-12-1982, the case drifted all along. On 25-6-1986, CMP No. 14473 of 1986 was filed by the petitioner producing therewith Ext. P6 containing the relevant extract of Regulation.19 dealing with the age of retirement.

(3.) Regulation.19(2) which is material reads as follows: