P RAJASEKARAN Vs. BANK OF BARODA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prayer in W. P. No. 998 of 1992 is as follows: 'to call for the records in Roc. 60079/90 (D. 10) dated 15. 10. 1991 of the fourth respondent and quash the order passed therein and consequently forbear the respondents 1-3 from proceeding further by the issue of writ of certiorarified mandamus.'

(2.) FACTS are: The name of the petitioner herein was sponsored by the board for appointment in the clerical cadre to the first respondent bank and the first respondent, at the time of appointment, insisted the petitioner to produce a community certificate. As such, the petitioner came at before this court earlier in W. P. No. 9063 of 1986 praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus to direct the first respondent bank to appoint him as clerk on the basis of the community certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Attur,dated 13. 8. 1992 to the effect that the petitioner belongs to Konda Reddy Community, which is a Scheduled Tribe Community. By order dated 7. 2. 1989, W. P. No. 9063 of 1986 was allowed with a direction to the respondent, the first respondent herein, to give posting within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of he said order. In the said order, the learned Judge observed thus: ' . . It is made clear that any posting now given is subject to the result of the enquiry to be held by the Collector of Salem at the request of the respondent regarding the genuineness of the community certificate produced by the petitioner. In the event of the respondent establishing that the community certificate produced by the petitioner was a bogus one, it is open to the respondent to terminate the service of the petitioner and take further action as is open to it in accordance with law. .' It seems the petitioner was appointed on 3. 3. 1989 the petitioner was appointed at Talainayar branch, Tanjore District. It seems the respondent bank seems to have initiated proceedings to verify the community certificate and referred the matter to the fourth respondent. It is alleged that the fourth respondent issued a notice on 26. 2. 1991, calling upon the petitioner to appear for an interview on 11. 3. 1991 and that it was served on 11. 3. 1991. It is alleged in the affidavit that since it was not possible for him to collect necessary documentary evidence, he sent a letter on 11. 3. 1991 to the fourth respondent requesting to postpone the enquiry. It seems that once again notice was issued on 17. 9. 1991, wherein he was asked to appear for an enquiry on 7. 10. 1991. It is alleged in the affidavit that he suddenly became ill due to severe pepticulcer and as such he sent a telegram to the fourth respondent expressing his inability to appear for the enquiry. The said telegram was followed by a letter dated 7. 10. 1991, enclosing a medical certificate. It is stated that while he was under the impression that the fourth respondent would grant time to appear for the enquiry, the impugned order dated 15. 10. 1991 has been passed cancelling the community certificate issued in favour the petitioner.

(3.) AFTER hearing Mr. N. Kannadasan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and of Mr. B. Narasimhan, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank of Baroda and of Mr. Veerabadran the learned government Advocate and on going through the materials placed before this court, the short point that arises for consideration is whether the impugned order has been passed in violation of the. principles of natural justice and whether it is liable to be set aside on the ground that the petitioner herein was not given an opportunity.