CANARA BANK Vs. M THIYAGARAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal has been filed by the second defendant in O. S. No. 93 of 1966 on the file of the sub-Court, Tuticorin. The said suit was filed by the respondent herein (1) for declaration that his discharge from the service of the appellant-bank is illegal and void (2) for a direction to reinstate him in service; and (3) for an injunction directing the defendant to allow him to work in his post in the bank or in the alternative for recovery of a sum of Rs. 10,000, as damages for breach of contract of service. The circumstances under which the said suit came to be filed may briefly be stated as follows :

(2.) THE plaintiff was a permanent employee of the defendant-Bank. He was the Manager in the appellant's branch at Sankarankoil when certain charges were framed against him. In relation to the said charges, an enquiry was conducted by the appellant-Bank and as a result of the said enquiry the plaintiff was discharged from his service. Aggrieved against the order of discharge, the plaintiff filed this suit seeking a declaration that his discharge was illegal and void and for reinstatement to his office or in the alternative damages for a sum of Rs. 10,000 for breach of contract of service.

(3.) THE defence put forward by the appellant-bank in the said suit was as follows : The plaintiff was appointed as an officer in Grade IV and was placed in charge of the Sankarankoil branch subject to the regulations in the appellant-Bank's Service Code, Exhibit B3. During the period when the plaintiff was in charge of the Sankarankoil branch, he committed various irregularities and misconduct which were not only detrimental to the interests of the bank but were also subversive of discipline. For the said irregularities and misconduct committed by the plaintiff, the appellant-bank, without dismissing the plaintiff from service, discharged him from service as per the provisions in the Service Code, Ext. B3. The said discharge of the plaintiff from his service cannot be questioned in a civil Court and in any event, the plaintiff cannot claim damages in a sum of Rs. 10,000 which is excessive. According to the appellant-bank the plaintiff was given full and effective opportunity to defend himself during the enquiry on the charges levelled against him, and there had been no violation of any of the principles of natural justice, and, therefore, no interference is, called for by the Court even if it has jurisdiction to entertain the suit to interfere with the order of discharge.