KALLU PRASAD DINKAR Vs. REGIONAL MANAGER ALLAHABAD BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the order of termination dated 8th October 1987 (Annexure -6 to the petition), is sought to be quashed by issuing a writ of certiorari.

(2.) THE petitioner was appointed on 15th October 84 as Agriculture Field Officer by the Allahabad Bank through its Chairman and Managing Director, in the Junior Management of the Allahabad Bank and was posted at Jaspura Branch of the Allahabad Bank in the District of Banda. The petitioner was placed on probation for a period of two years in view of Regulation 15 of the Allahabad Bank (Officers') Service Regulations. 1979. (for short the Regulations), framed in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 19 read with Sub -section (2) of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, vide appointment letter dated 25th September 84 (Annexure -1 to the petition). Para 2 of the appointment letter indicates that the appointment in the first place is on probation for a period of two years which may be extended by a further period not exceeding one year. Similar was provided under Regulations 15 and 16 of the Regulations. Ex abundanti cautela, the provisions of Regulations 15 and 16 are set out below: -

(3.) SRI G.C. Bhattacharya, learned Counsel for 1 the petitioner, urged that a bare reading of Regulations 15 and 16 of the Regulations would indicate that the probationary period for an officer in the Junior Management directly appointed (not as a promote), was two years, which could have been reduced or dispensed with in view of proviso added to Regulation 15. Regulation 16(1) prescribes that in case an employee of the Bank is promoted as, an officer in the Junior Management, he has to complete a training in an institution to which the officer may have been deputed for training. There was a proviso added to Regulation 16(1) applicable to the case of petitioner as he was an officer directly recruited to the Junior Management. He was required to pass a test in a language other than his mother tongue. But in fact, there was no such test held nor the petitioner was ever required to pass test in a language other than the mother tongue. Otherwise the petitioner would have passed that test also, as he has got' a very brilliant academic record and was very sincere and devoted to his services. Sub -clause (2) of Regulation 16 provides that the Competent Authority may extend probationary period only under two circumstances, either the officer A promoted has not completed his training referred to in Sub -Regulation (1) or the officer, as has been the case of petitioner, has not passed the test referred to therein. The petitioner has passed B.Sc. (Agri) and Animal Husbandry from the Chandra 4 Shekhar Azad University of Agriculture and Technology, Kanpur in 1st Division in 1982 in English Medium and the mother tongue of the petitioner was Hindi. He could very well have passed the test in English language. But he was never directed to do so, nor there was any such examination held as required by the provison to Regulation 16. Consequently, the extension of probationary period of two years was without authority or jurisdiction. It was next urged that the petitioner would stand confirmed on completion of the period of probation of two years as the proviso of Regulation 16 was not applicable to his case, inasmuch as he was never required to pass the test in a language other than the mother tongue. It was further urged that the Regional Manager was not the appointing authority of the petitioner. Consequently, he has no power or authority to terminate the services of the petitioner by the impugned order dated 8th October 87 (Annexure -6 to the petition). The appointing authority of the petitioner was respondent No. 2, Allahabad Bank through its Chairman and Managing Director. In any case, it was not a simple order of termination, rather it was an order of dismissal attaching stigma to the petitioner's conduct. It appears that some enquiry behind the back of the petitioner was held and some secret report was obtained without affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. Hence the impunged order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice and other relevant regulations.