INDIAN BANK Vs. C V REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal is against the order of learned single Judge dated June 17, 1991 allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent herein for the issue of a certiorarified mandamus quashing the order made by the first appellant in GM/pr/nl/13 dated February 26, 1988 and directing the first appellant to permit the respondent herein to continue his probation.

(2.) THE relevant facts are shortly as follows: The first appellant issued an advertisement through Banking Service Recruitment Board in Advertisement No. 12/86 inviting applications for recruitment to the post of Chief Engineer for the first appellant bank. As regards the scale of pay and grade, the advertisement has mentioned that the selected candidate will be fixed on a proper scale so that the total salary would not exceed Rs. 4600/- per mensen at the current rate inclusive of pension if any as per Government directions in addition to provident fund and gratuity as per rules. The respondent herein applied for the post and he was selected. A communication was sent by the Recruitment Board in February, 1987 to the respondent that he was provisionally selected and allotted for appointment as Chief Engineer in the Indian Bank and that in due course he was informed with regard to the terms and conditions of the appointment. The said communication also referred to the fact that the appointment was subject inter alia to the verification of his character and antecedents and other matters referred to therein. The Management Board in a meeting held on October 9, 1986 approved the reappointment of Lt Cl. P. Venugopala Menon, (retired), as consultant Engineer to the bank for a period of six months from October 3, 1986 on certain terms and conditions. It was mentioned in the note of the General Manager to the Board dated May 23, 1987 that the construction project at several places all over India apart from other regular work related to the Estate Department and it is desirable to ensure that there was a competent person to continuously oversee the progress in regard to these projects/jobs in process. On that basis, recommendations were made to the Board that the said Lt. Col. P. Venugopala Menon may be reap-pointed as Consultant Engineer for a period of six months with effect from May, 1987. The Board resolved accordingly.

(3.) THE appointment letter was sent to the respondent on August 3, 1987. As regards his emoluments the basic pay of Rs. 2,850/ per mensem in the middle management grade scale III Rs. 2650/- 1003250/- was fixed. " It was stated that he would be entitled to dearness allowance as may be sanctioned from time to time and at that time it was Rs. 1556. 10. He was also entitled to City Compensatory Allowance and House Rent Allance as per rules depending on the place of posting. With reference to the period of probation, the letter said that he will be on probation for a period of one year from the date of his joining duty and during the said period he would be required to undergo training in any institution to which he will be deputed and the in-service training in the Bank. It was added. "the Bank may, however, at its discretion, curtail or extend or dispense with the period of probation in any individual case. " It was made clear in the letter that he was bound by the Bank's rules and regulations governing the services of Officers in force from time to time. It was stated that a copy of the rules and regulations will be given to him at the time of his joining duty. A copy of the said appointment letter was forwarded to him with the request to specify his consent and acceptance and return the same to the Bank. Accordingly, the respondent made an endorsement, offer accepted " on August 11, 1987 in the copy of the letter and forwarded it to the bank. He was asked to report for duty on or before October 7, 1987. He made a representation that the basic pay should be revised and it was not accepted. He was informed by a letter dated October 2, 1987. Immediately thereafter, he sent a notice through his lawyer on January 24, 1988 to appellants 2 and 3 alleging that they had fixed the pay according to their convenience and decision without any jurisdiction contrary to the management Board's resolution and thereby caused wrongful loss to him. It was also alleged that the second addressee (third appellant herein) made a false note and suppressed vital information in the note)/dated May 22, 1987 which was placed before the Board. At the end of notice it was stated that the two addressees had committed offence of cheating under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code thereby subjecting themselves for punishment provided therein. They were called upon to immediately explain within ten days of the receipt thereof as to why criminal prosecution should not be launched against both of them under the Indian Penal Code. A reply was sent on behalf of appellants 2 and 3 on February 11, 1988 setting out the factual position according to them and refuting the complaint made in the respondent's lawyer's notice. There was a rejoinder by the respondent on February 22, 1988. It was addressed to the Chairman and the Managing Director of the Bank sent through proper channel. In that rejoinder, the respondent had sought permission to approach directly the Director of Public Grievances, New Delhi, to administer justice in his case and to bring to the notice of the Secretary in the Ministry of Finance - Banking, the irregularities and injustice done to him while taking appropriate action at his end.