T D DIGAMBAR Vs. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above writ petition has been filed for a writ of certiorari to call for and quash the proceedings of the second respondent in RO:PRS.AD:82/116, dated 8.7.1982, the memo by which the petitioner was informed that his services were terminated with effect from 17.7.1982 that the termination did not amount to retrenchment, and that notwithstanding the same, the petitioner was being given retrenchment compensation which he would have drawn if the termination had amounted to retrenchment and that a pay order for Rs.3,982.17 being the three months pay and allowances was being also attached.

(2.) THE petitioner was appointed as Shroff-cum-Collection Clerk in the services of the respondent-bank on 17.11.1968. On 4.11.1979, the petitioner sought permission from the first respondent for filing an insolvency petition as he had incurred debts of Rs.20,000 at high rate of interest. On 15.4.1980, the petitioner appears to have been suspended on the basis of the above letter while he was working as clerk and he was allowed to draw an amount equal to 1/3 of his salary and all other subsistence allowances as per the orders of the Divisional Manager, Coimbatore Division. Subsequently, on 30.8.1980 having regard to the entitlement of the petitioner, he was ordered to be paid half salary and allowances and subsistence allowances. THE petitioner has been issued with a charge memo on 13.1.1981 which included the charge of issuing cheques H.S.S. withdrawals on his account without keeping sufficient funds. By his communication dated 4.11.1979 to the Divisional Manager, the petitioner confessed that he contracted loans approximately of Rs.20,000 and was paying exorbitant interest and seeking permission as referred to above to file an insolvency petition. THE petitioner did actually file an insolvency petition on 8.11.1979. THE charge memo also contained charge of violation of Sec.10(1)(b)(iii) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 and the petitioner was alleged to have committed misconduct involving moral turpitude. I.P.No.54 of 1979 filed by the petitioner, in the court of the Subordinate Judge of Tiruchirapalli was said to have been withdrawn on 28.7.1980 and it is, therefore, claimed that the petitioner, was not adjudged as an insolvent.

(3.) ON behalf of the respondents, the decision of this Court in Ramiar v. State Bank of India, Madras Ramiar v. State Bank of India, Madras Ramiar v. State Bank of India, Madras (1963)2 L.L.J. 304which was confirmed on appeal by a decision of Ramish v. State Bank of India, Madras Ramish v. State Bank of India, Madras Ramish v. State Bank of India, Madras (1968)2 L.L.J. 424 was relied uponto contend that loss of confidence is a matter to be understood in the light of the circumstances of each case and that even in a case where an enquiry has been initiated and conclusions have been arrived at on the basis of the enquiry yet the employer may either choose to punish the employee on a finding of misconduct or it may choose for what may seem to the authority to be valid reasons to terminate the employment under the contract instead, and that the choice of one of the alternatives cannot be denied to the management. ON the basis of the said principle, it is contended that loss of confidence and the consequent termination under paragraph 522 cannot be said to be one for any misconduct.