ANANTRAY JATASHANKER TRIVEDI Vs. BANK OF BARODA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . This is a petition by an employee of the respondent Nationalised Bank of Baroda challenging the order of punishment confirmed on 29-7-75 by the appellate authority dismissing the appeal of the petitioner. Two charges were held as proved as per the order Annexure L and his one increment in respect of each of the charges was ordered to be stopped. This stoppage was to have the effect of postponing his future increments also. This punishment was provided in respect of three subcharges. On the second head of the charge he was given a warning in writing in respect of his behaviour and also enjoining upon him that he should not give any cause for complaint about his conduct in future. It was further ordered that the petitioners period of suspension from 2-4-73 was to be treated as such. Having failed in his appeal the petitioner moved this High Court under Article 226 csf the Constitution challenging the said order as illegal and ultra vires on various grounds. The grounds are (i) variance between the charge and proof (2) the petitioner not being heard in respect of the punishment (3) the authority having no right to pass the order in respect of the period of suspension and (4) non-compliance with the principles of natural justice. In the petition the petitioner had ultimately prayed to issue a writ of certiorari after calling for the proceedings from the respondent to quash the disciplinary actions against the petitioner and to quash the orders of the Enquiry Order dated 14-4-75 and of the appellate authority dated 29-7-75 with a further direction to the respondent to pay all the emoluments and advantages accruing to the petitioner as if this punishment was not inflicted on him.

(2.) The petition has been hotly contested on behalf of the Bank of Baroda. The affidavit-in-reply was filed by the Head of the Staff and Personnel Department of the Bank of Baroda.

(3.) A few facts require to be stated. The petitioner was working as a driver to ply the banks jeep pertaining to the Satellite Branch of Anjar Branch of this Bank The duty of that Satellite Branch was to catter to the banking needs of the people round-about scattered over different villages. It was alleged against the petitioner that he had committed various acts of misconduct and was liable to be proceeded against departmentally. On 26-3-73 the petitioner was told that a decision was reached to hold the departmental enquiry and one Mr. I. C. Desai Deputy Chief Officer Enquiry Cell Central Office Bombay was appointed as the Enquiry Officer and one Mr. C. D. Modi Regional Manager Rajkot was designated as the appellate authority. The enquiry was sought to be proceeded against in accordance with the provisions of the bi-partite settlement dated 19 between the various Banking Companies on one hand and their employees represented by the Unions on the other. We are not much concerned with the details.