PAUL FRANCIS AMBUKKARAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS in these Original Petitions were employees of the Bank of Cochin Ltd, (hereinafter referred to as the transferor bank), which,after a short-span of moratorium declared under Sec. 45 of the Banking Regulation Act, was amalgamated with the State Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as the transferee bank)under a statutory scheme approved by the government of India under Sec. 45 (7) of the above enactment. Petitioners challenge their inclusion in the schedule attached to the scheme. The effect of such inclusion was that they were excluded from continuance in service under the State Bank of India unlike other employees.

(2.) PETITIONERS were officers of the Bank of cochin Ltd. Some of them had undergone special trainings and acquired other qualifications, which equipped them for higher responsibilities in the banking industry. During the course of their service in the Bank, indiscretions and irregularities were committed in the discharge of their official duties allegedly at the behest of the Chairman or one of the other of the Directors of the transferor-bank. Acts so attributed to them were of lesser gravity, and magnitude than those committed by some of their colleagues. The transferor bank came to grief due to the improper manner in which its affairs were conducted by the Board of Directors and a moratorium had to be declared under Sec. 45 (1) and (2) of the banking Regulation Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ). Subsequently, a scheme was drawn up by the Reserve Bank of India and the same was approved by the Government of India under Sec. 45 (7) of the Act. Though there was no schedule annexed to the draft scheme, one such was annexed to the approved scheme including the names of 21 officers of the transferor bank who were not to be employed by the transferee bank. The petitioners are some of such officers. They assail their inclusion in the Schedule and consequent refusal of employment in the transferee bank as discriminatory, arbitrary and unconstitutional. They allege mala fides in the choice of employees of the transferor bank for continuance and exclusion, the less guilty and less influential like the petitioners being excluded from employment and the more guilty, but more influential being continued in employment. This is said to be due to the influence of totally irrelevant and extraneous considerations. The finalisation of the scheme annexing a schedule of employees without notice to the petitioners who were denied employment is said to violate the principle of natural justice.

(3.) SEPARATE counter affidavits have been filed by respondents 1 to 3. Some of the other party respondents, who were continued in service in the transferee-bank pursuant to the scheme of amalgamation, have also filed counter affidavits.