V PRASAD Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA COIMBATORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are employees of the State bank of India. The petitioner in W. P. No. 6860 of 1985 is attached to the Ganapathy Branch, coimbatore. The petitioner in W. P. No. 9205 of 1985 is attached to the Santhome Branch, madras. The petitioner in W. P. No. 6860 of 1985 has been visited with an order by the respondent therein, who is the Branch manager, on 15th April 1985 the contents of which run as follows:

(2.) THIS is without prejudice to the Bank's right to initiate appropriate disciplinary action against you in this regard. The petitioner in w. P. No. 9205 of 1985 was given an order by the respondent therein, who is the Branch manager, on 13th May 1985 which runs as follows: "failure to perform allotted work. In the absence of one clerk on leave you have been assigned effective from 2nd May 1985 by an office order to do the under noted work in addition to the work already attached to your seat. 'lodging of chequeslocal' It is observed that you have not written the savings Bank and Recurring Deposit Day Books attached to your seat on 2nd August 1985, with the result the balancing of clean Cash book/general Ledger could not be completed in time. However the work allotted to you has been completed by the officials of the Branch. Since you have not performed the duties allotted to you on 2nd May 1985, please note that you are not eligible for wages on that day. Please submit your explanation before the close of business today. This is without prejudice to any disciplinary action that the bank might initiate against you in this regard" "two points were urged by Mr. D. Murugesan, learned counsel for the petitioners, coveting quashing by this Court in Writ jurisdiction of the orders passed by the respondents, the respective Branch Managers and directing repayment of the wages cut. One is, the withholding of the wages for the day is absolutely unsustainable without resorting to the disciplinary action. Mr. R. Sreekrishnan. learned counsel for the respondents, would try to sustain the impugned orders by staring that the conduct of the petitioners in not completing the work allocated to them would amount to non-performance of the work and hence there could be valid curtailment of the wages. He draws my attention to a circular letter addressed by the Head Office of State Bank of India to all branches in Madras Circle on 11th November 1983 and in particular to paragraphs 3 and 4 thereof which runs as follows:

(3.) THIS is sufficient to interfere in writ jurisdiction and accord the reliefs asked for by the petitioners. However, the second point raised by Mr. D. Murugesan is that orders of the present nature could not be passed by the respondents because they are not authorities having disciplinary powers over the petitioners. In answer, Mr. R. Sreekrishnan, learned counsel for the respondents would draw my attention to clause 2 of Chapter II of the instructions relating to Delegation of Financial powers of State Bank of India which contemplates the Head of an office and the Head of a department in an administrative office shall have powers to authorise payment of salaries and allowances and would contend that therefore he could also withhold payment of wages in contingencies like the present one. There is no need to go into this aspect because I have sustained the first ground of attack. The reasons expressed above oblige me to allow these writ petitions and accordingly these writ petitions are allowed. No costs. I make it clear that this order shall not stand in the way of the authorities concerned prosecuting the disciplinary action as contemplated in the impugned orders and passing ultimate orders thereon.