P K DESAI Vs. BANK OF BARODA BOMBAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner joined the services of Bank of Baroda respondent No. 1 herein (respondent Bank for short) as a Personnel Assistant as F Grade Officer on 28/03/1966 The pay-scale of F Grade Officer was Rs. 30-25-450. The petitioner was it would appear : entitled to yearly increments of Rs. 25.00 in the aforesaid grade. However the respondent Bank withheld his increments for the years 1969 1970 and 1971. The increment for the year 1969 was due on 28/03/1970 for the year 1970 on 28/03/1971 and for the year 197 1/03/1972 The petitioner and the Bank of Baroda Officers Association (Association for short) of which he was member made represeNtations to the respondent Bank against withholding of three increments The petitioner was informed that the case for release of his three increments which were stopped in view of the adverse reports against him was submitted for consideration to the Committee of Executives at its meeting held on 7/12/1976 The petitioner was informed that the Committee had vide its resolution No 73 dated 7/12/1976 decided not to release the aforesaid three increments of the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter again made representation to the Chairman and Managing Director of the respondent Bank but by a communication dated 18/01/1978 he was again informed that the Committee of Executives had in its resolution referred to above decided not to release three increments. The petitioner thereafter preferred appeal before the Board of Directors of the respondent Bank on 30/08/1979 However there was no response to this appeal. In other words according to the petitioner no decision was rendered on the appeal preferred by him. The petitioner therefore approached this Court by way Of this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the legality and validity of the action of the respondent Bank in withholding his three increments as stated above.

(2.) It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is entitled to yearly increments as a matter of right and increments could not have been withheld except on the ground that he had failed to cross the Efficiency Bar. (E. B. for short) wherever it was prescribed or for a misconduct after holding proper enquiry. It is submitted that one of the penalties enumerated in Rule 8.3 of the Bank of Baroda Officers Services Rules (Rules for short) is stoppage of increments which shall have the effect of postponing future increment of the officer. However such penalty for misconduct can be imposed only after enquiry and after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the officer who is alleged to have committed misconduct. Petitioners increment for the years 1969 1970 and 1971 were withheld permanently. In other words they were withheld with future effect that is to say withholding of the three increments has the effect of postponing the petitioners future increments also. With holding of increments is therefore by way of penalty and such penalty could not have been imposed except after a domestic enquiry. The petitioner was not required to cross the E B. in order to earn increments for the years 1969 1970 and 1971 and therefore these increments could not have been withheld for failure to cross the E. B. In any case it is submitted that the increments could not have been withheld without interviewing the petitioner as provided in Letter Annexure A dated 23/12/1968 issued by the Chairman of the respondent Bank. The petitioner was not interviewed before his three increments were withheld. The petitioner submitted that no adverse remarks were communicated to him from 1968 onwards nor had he been served with any memo. Petitioner has stated that he has been-working sincerely honestly diligently and to the satisfaction of his superior officers. He had also held several important positions report whereof is punished in the magazine of the Bank a true copy of which is annexed at Annexure `C. The petitioner has contended that the respondent Bank has become a corporate body under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act 1970 and it is a STATE within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution It is submitted that the respondent Bank was under obligation to afford equality of opportunity in the matter of employment to all its officers and any departure from this obligation would be violative of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution. It is submitted that withholding of three increments of the petitioner amounts to imposition of penalty without enquiry whatsoever and without giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. The said action of the respondent Bank is therefore ultra vires violative of service conditions of the officer statutorily recognised under sec. 14(2) of the said Act principles of natural justice and null and void Petitioner therefore prays that the said decision of the respondent Bank to withhold three increments of the petitioner be quashed and set aside.

(3.) The defence of the respondent Bank as disclosed in the affidavit of its Development Manager (International Trade) East and South Gujarat Zone is that the increments had to be earned by the officer concerned by his performance and are not given as a matter of course. It is submitted that increments can be stopped on objective assessment of performance of individual officer apart from by way of penalty for any misconduct after regular enquiry. It is submitted that stoppage of increments on objective assessment and withholding of increments for any misconduct are very different in their nature and scope. According to the respondent Bank the increments of the petitioner were stopped for good reasons on objective assessment and not as a penalty. It is submitted that under Rule 4.2 of the Rules the respondent Bank had a right to stop increments at any stage according to the general understanding about such stoppage and the association is given right to represent to the respondent Bank if increment is stopped. It is submitted that the general understanding referred to under Rule 4.2 was that increment is not a matter of course or matter of right. It has to be earned in the sense that the concerned officer has to put up good performance which may not be positive but must reveal normal performance and should not fall short of reasonable standards of qualities of officers. It is submitted that this practice was followed since many years and it had the sanction of the Association. It is further submitted that the Association had on behalf of the petitioner made representation against the stoppage of the three increments of the petitioner on or about 20/07/1976 in the meeting between the representatives of the Association and the representatives of the Management. The representations were duly considered by the Management that is the Committee of Executives consisting of top executives of the respondent Bank including the General Manager and Deputy General Manager. On consideration of the rePresentations made by the Association it was not considered fit to grant or release increments which were withheld. It is therefore submitted that the petitioner has no case on merits and his petition deserves to be rejected.