RENUKABEN RASMIKANT PADIA Vs. BANK OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rashmikant Padia, husband of the petitioner died in road accident while on duty. He was working as a Clerk with the respondent bank. After his death, it is stated that he was involved in a serious act which the bank called swindling away of a sizeable amount of Rs.11,90,940/-. On his death, his widow, the present petitioner applied to the respondent bank for appointing her eldest son Ronak aged 21 for being appointed in the service of the respondent bank on compassionate ground. Her application was rejected on 1.9.2001 by the respondent bank. Therefore, she had approached this Court by way of Special Civil Application No.10919 of 2001. The said petition was dismissed by the Learned Single Judge of this Court (Coram: D.H.Waghela, J) on 15.4.2002. Hence, this Letters Patent Appeal.

(2.) Learned Counsel Shri Sahni for the appellant vehemently submitted that the impugned order of rejection of her application passed by the respondent bank was absolutely non-speaking order. Under the circular, the Bank Authority was required to examine her application judiciously and sympathetically but with one line order, her application was mechanically rejected. He, therefore, submitted that the Learned Single Judge should have allowed the petition and should have sent the matter back to the Authority for offering explanation after affording an opportunity of hearing. This submission of Mr.Sahni cannot be accepted for the simple reason that it was not an order of penalty. The respondent bank was not supposed to write a judgment like the Court while deciding an application on that ground. On the material available with the bank, if it has come to the conclusion that the application cannot be granted then they can reject it by brief order.

(3.) Mr.Sahni then submitted that no other person was departmentally dealt with in the case of swindling away the amount of Rs.11,90,940/- except the deceased husband of the petitioner who was merely a Clerk and that too after his death. There is no substance in this submission. It is not necessary that others should also be departmentally proceeded alongwith the deceased.