P J RADADIA Vs. STATE BANK OF SAURASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed against an order of dismissal passed by the Regional Manager of the State Bank of Saurashtra on 8/01/1991 and confirmed by the Zonal Manager (Appellate Authority) on 15/03/1991 being illegal, ultra vires and unconstitutional.

(2.) To appreciate the controversy raised in the petition, few relevant facts may now be stated : It is the case of the petitioner that he was working as Cashier-cumclerk with the respondent-Bank of Jasdan Branch. A complaint was filed against him on 15/09/1989 in connection with offences punishable under Sees. 420, 419 and 467 of the Indian Penal Code. It was alleged against the petitioner that by tempering with a demand draft of a customer of the Bank, the petitioner misappropriated an amount of Rs. 1,65,000/ ~, A criminal case came to be registered against him. The petitioner pleaded guilty to the charge on 15/03/1990 and prayed for grant of probation. Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Jasdan after considering the facts and circumstances, released the petitioner on probation for a period of three years by a judgment and order dated 30/04/1990. In the meanwhile, however, the petitioner was suspended by an order dt. 15/08/1989 by the Bank after criminal case was filed and the petitioner was arrested. After the judgment by the Criminal Court, the petitioner applied for reinstatement in service but a notice came to be issued by the respondent- Bank on 13/09/1990, asking him to show cause as to why he should not be dismissed from service with effect from the date of the judgment of Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Jasdan, i.e., from 30/04/1990. The petitioner submitted his reply. By the impugned order, the Regional Manager dismissed the petitioner from service with retrospective effect and the order came to be confirmed by the appellate authority. Being aggrieved by these orders, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present petition.

(3.) Mr. P. V. Hathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the order is illegal, inasmuch as no retrospective effect could have been given to the order of dismissal. He also contended that Clause 19.3(b) of Bipartite Settlement of 1966 by which such power is conferred on the Bank to dismiss an employee with retrospective effect must be held to be arbitrary, unreasonable and ultra vires. It was submitted that there was total non-application of mind on the part of the Bank in not considering the material fact that the petitioner was not convicted and sentenced but was granted probation and, hence, he could not have been dismissed from service. No reasonable opportunity was afforded to the petitioner and the Bank had pre-judged and pre-determined the issue. The order is thus violative of Art. 311 of the Constitution of India. Finally, it was submitted that the appellate authority recorded some additional reasons for which no opportunity of being heard was given to the petitioner. The order passed by the appellate authority was, therefore, violative of the principles of natural justice and fair play.