OM PRAKASH SRIVASTAVA Vs. REGIONAL RURAL BAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 26-3-1979 by which the services of the petitioner were terminated.

(2.) REGIONAL Rural Bank Ballia (hereinafter referred to as Bank) in response to petitioner's application dated 6-7-1977 offered the post of Branch Manager to him by means of a memo dated 29-7-1978. The memo (appointment-order) clearly provided that he will be on probation for one year and the relevant clause reads as follows :- "He will be appointed on probation for one year w.e.f. 1-8-1978. The probation period may be further extended by one more year in case his performance, conduct, and attendance is not found satisfactory. Notwithstanding any thing contained in this letter, the services are liable to be terminated in the sole discretion of the Bank, even before the expiry of the probation period, without assigning any reason or reasons, by giving one month's notice or on payment -of one month salary in lieu of notice."

(3.) LEARNED counsel has next submitted that though the termination order dated 26-3-1979 recites that the same was being passed in accordance with the terms and conditions of petitioner's services but in reality the order had been passed by way of penalty. It is urged that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 19-3-1979 stating that he had misutilised the discretionary power delegated to him and had sanctioned disbursed loans to himself and to the clerk cum cashier of the Bank and also to his family members and relatives. The notice further directed him to show cause within three days why suitable action should not be taken against him. According to learned counsel the fact that a show cause notice alleging misconduct on the part of the petitioner was issued to him, conclusively establishes that the termination order which was passed a week thereafter was in fact an order of punishment. It is thus submitted that as the services of the petitioner had been teaminated by way of punishment without affording him any opportunity of hearing, the same was illegal and contrary to law.