INDIAN BANK Vs. EVALAPPAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent herein was working as agent at the Coonoor branch of the appellant-Bank, hereinafter referred to as the Bank, since 1968. The Bank was nationalised in the year 1969 by virtue of the provisions of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Ordinance, 1969, which was later on replaced by an Act of the same name in 1970. On 13th June, 1970, the respondent was suspended from service and an enquiry was initiated against him in respect of eight irregularities, contained in the memo of charges dated 4th December, 1970. The respondent submitted his explanation on 29th January, 1971. He was given a personal hearing by the Secretary of the Bank on 26th May, 1972. Ultimately, the Board issued to him a notice dated 19th August, 1972, requiring him to show cause as to why he should not be dismissed from service. With that notice were enclosed four reports prepared by the investigating officers on the 13th of May, 1970, 27th of May, 1970, 15th of June, 1970 and 8th of August, 1970, respectively. In reply to the notice dated 19th August, 1972, the respondent submitted his explanation on 25th August, 1972. After considering his representation the respondent was dismissed from service by the Board's order dated 28th October, 1972 and the same was confirmed in appeal by the Board's second order dated 25th May, 1973.

(2.) THE respondent filed Writ Petition No. 4089 of 1973 seeking a writ of certiorari from this Court to quash the said order of dismissal dated 28th October, 1972, on two grounds : (1) the orders cut at the root of the principles of natural justice that nobody should be condemned unheard, and (2) though the orders are in the nature of quasi-judicial orders, they do not set out the reasons for the respondent's dismissal and, therefore, they have to be taken as null and void.

(3.) THE said writ petition was resisted by the appellant-Bank on various grounds. It took two preliminary objections as to the maintainability of the writ petition. One was that the relationship between the parties being that of master and servant arising out of a contract of service, the parties cannot invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court. Dealing with this objection, Koshal, J. (as he then was), expressed the view that though the rules governing the service t of officers of the Indian Bank framed in the year 1963 originally did not have a statutory force and the relationship between the Bank and its employees was only contractual, after the Bank was nationalised under the provisions of the 1970 Act referred to above, the said rules having been continued under Sections 12 (2) and 19 (3) of the 1970 Act the relationship between the Bank and its employees from 19th July, 1969, the date of the coming into force of the 1970 Act, has ceased to be merely contractual, that as a result of the said provisions of the Act the rules governing the service of officers have been shifted to the status of a statutory regulation governing the conditions of service of the employees of the Bank and that, as such-for breach of any service conditions, the employees of the Bank who have acquired a statutory status after the coming into force of the 1970 Act, may invoke this Court's extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The second preliminary objection urged by the Bank was that the respondent had another remedy open to him by way of an appeal to the appellate authority constituted under the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947. Dealing with this objection, Koshal, J. , expressed the view that even assuming that another remedy is available to the respondent, an order of dismissal passed without jurisdiction and, therefore, a nullity can be questioned straightway under Article 226 of the Constitution before this Court. On the merits of the respondent's contentions set out above, Koshal, J. , held that (1) there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice in the conduct of the enquiry in that the report of the Secretary and his recommendations to the Board which constitute a most important part of the material on which the Board had acted had not been furnished to the respondent, and (2) that the order of dismissal passed by the Board being laconic and non-speaking it has to be struck down. In this view, the order of dismissal was quashed. The correctness of the order of Koshal, J. , has been questioned in this writ appeal by the Bank.