RAMESH KRISHNA RAO Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by one Ramesh Krishna Rao (original petitioner) against the judgment and order passed by Vimadalal, J. on July 24, 1969, whereby the learned Judge dismissed his petition being Misc. Petition No. 563 of 1967.

(2.) A few facts giving rise to the filing of the petition may be stated : The petitioner was appointed as a probationary assistant in the State Bank of India (respondent No. 1) with effect from November 3, 1959. When that post was offered to him on October 30, 1959 the petitioner was furnished with the cyclostyled copy of the State Bank of India (Officers and Assistants) Service Rules governing his services in the Bank and was informed that he will be required to sign the declaration in form "A" appended to the Rules. By His letter dated November 3, 1959 he accepted the appointment and as required by Rules he paid a sum Rs. 1,000 as and by way of security deposit and signed the requisite declaration in the prescribed form "A" agreeing to be bound by the Rules. On August 1, 1962 the petitioner was confirmed in his service under the resolution of the Central Board of Directors of the Bank and due intimation of such confirmation was given to him by respondent No. 1's letter dated August 30, 1962. It may be stated that he was confirmed as the State Bank Officer, Grade III. On November 21, 1964 he was posted at Bhopal as an accountant and he reported for duty there on] December 9, 1964 and actually took over the complete charge of his post on December 22, 1964. Under office order dated July 21, 1965 under telephonic instruction he was asked to hand over emergency charge of the accountant's post to one T. B. Chincholi and he was asked to proceed on a month's leave. However, under fresh telephonic instructions which were communicated to him by the Agent of the Bhopal branch on July 23, 1965 it appears that the leave was cancelled and he was transferred to Bombay where he was asked to join at the head office after availing of the usual joining time after being relieved from Bhopal branch. He however, did not report for duty at Bombay head Office on July 28, 1965 when he was expected to do but reported for duty on August 23, 1965. Since, according to respondent No. 1 Bank, the petitioner's absence at the Bombay head office from July 28, 1965 to August 23, 1965 was unauthorised, it was regarded as misconduct on his part, in respect of which, after giving him an opportunity to give his explanation, he was punished by way of censure on November 11, 1965. The petitioner's appeal to the secretary and treasurer of the Bank against the punishment by way of censure was thereafter dismissed on November 18, 1966. It appears that in the meantime on November 3, 1965 the petitioner was posted at Reva branch of the State Bank of India. He proceeded on leave for a month while he was working at Reva on January 17, 1967 and was due back at the Bombay head office on February 17, 1967. He applied for extension of leave by one month but before the question of granting extension of leave was considered, respondent No. 1 Bank thought fit to terminate his services in the interest of Bank. By a letter of the Managing Director dated February 15, 1967 the petitioner was informed that the Executive Committee of the Central Board of the State Bank had resolved that his services be terminated in terms of Rule 18 of the State Bank of India (Officers and Assistants) Service Rules on payment of three months' salary in lieu of notice and his services were actually terminated with effect from February 18, 1967. By his advocate's notice dated March 28, 1967 the petitioner challenged the aforesaid termination of his service on the ground that the termination was not termination simpliciter but in reality it was an order of dismissal though worded in innocuous terms to circumvent a departmental inquiry provided for under Rules 49, 50 and 51 before dismissing an officer. He also challenged his transfer from Bhopal to Bombay Head Office under telephonic instructions on July 23, 1965 as having been motivated by extraneous consideration and mala fide. He called upon respondent No. 1 Bank to withdraw the so called termination of his service, failing which legal action was threatened. Thereupon the petitioner filed Misc. Petition No. 563 of 1967 on the Original Side of this Court, principally seeking two reliefs : (i) quashing or setting aside the order of termination of his services by an appropriate writ and (ii) a declaration that Rule 18 under which such termination had been effected was unconstitutional and void. He also prayed that the legality of his transfer from Bhopal to Bombay on July 23, 1955 should be examined by the Court and the same be set aside by an appropriate writ.

(3.) On behalf of the two respondents, viz., The State Bank of India (respondent No. 1) and V. T. Dahejia, the then Chairman of the Central Board of the State Bank of India (respondent No. 2), an affidavit in reply dated February 19, 1968 was filed denying the several submissions and grounds on which the two impugned orders were sought to be challenged. Inter alia, it was contended that the Service Rules governing the officers and assistants employed by respondent No. 1 were not statutory rules and the petitioner could not challenge the respondent's authority to terminate has services in exercise of its contractual right by way of a writ. In other words, it was contended that the service rules which govern the terms of employment of the petitioner with the respondent-Bank were in the nature of contractual terms and as such even if the termination was in breach of any Rule it would be a wrongful termination and his remedy lay in damages and he was not entitled to get a declaration that the said termination was illegal or the same should be quashed or set aside and he be regarded as having continued in service. On merits, it was contended that the services of the petitioner were terminated after respondent No. 1 was satisfied that such termination was in the best interest of the Bank and the circumstances leading to the termination of the petitioners' services were set out in great detail in para 10 of the said affidavit. It was further pointed out that respondent No. 1 had properly resorted to Rule 18 and there was no question of the respondent holding any enquiry under Rules 49 and 50 of the said Rules before terminating his services as submitted by the petitioner.