M SUNDARESWARAM Vs. ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed as an Officer (Manager) by the respondent Bank by an order dated 27th February, 1980 in the pay scale of Rs. 660-1800. By an order dated 7th December, 1984 the petitioner was suspended in accordance with Regulation 12(1) of the Oriental Bank of Commerce Officers Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1982. The order of suspension was passed on the ground that while working as Manager at Branch Office Dadar, Bombay, the petitioner had committed serious irregularities. After the order of suspension, the Bank did not frame any charge-sheet against the petitioner, but by the letter dated 28th February, 1985 the petitioner was informed that the order of suspension stands revoked and the petitioner would be entitled to the salary and allowance for the period of suspension. On the same day, the petitioner was served with another order informing that his services stand terminated in accordance with Regulation 20 with effect from 4th March, 1985. The action of the respondent Bank is under challenge in this petition filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India on 30th April, 1985.

(2.) Shri. Singhvi, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, complains that Regulation 20(1) of the said Regulations is arbitrary and suffers from vice of discrimination. It was urged that the Regulation confers upon the Bank a blanket power to dismiss an employee without holding an enquiry and without assigning any reasons and as such the power is violative of the protection granted under Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The learned Counsel further urged that the order of termination was passed in colourable exercise of the powers. Shri Damania, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Bank, on the other hand urged that it is necessary and desirable that the power set out in Regulation 20(1) should be available to the nationalised bank. It was contended that there are certain grey areas where it would be in-appropriate for the Bank to hold an inquiry in regard to the misconduct of the officers and in such cases where the Bank has lost the confidence in the employee, the power to remove is necessary and should not be considered as violative of the fundamental rights.

(3.) Regulation 20 deals with the subject of termination of service and Regulation 20(1) reads as under :