N B SHUKLA Vs. BANK OF BARODA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The important question that arises in this petitioner is whether the order terminating the service of the petitioner amounts to dismissal by way of punishment or whether it is a discharge from service simpliciter. It is to restrain the respondents from acting or enforcing that order, and for other ancillary reliefs, that this petition has been filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The 1st respondent is the Bank of Baroda (referred to hereafter as "the Bank"). The 2nd respondent is the Union of India in whom, after the coming into force of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, all the assets, capital, shares and properties of the Bank vests. No relief is claimed against the 2nd respondent.

(3.) On 30th March, 1960, the petitioner was employed by the Bank as a clerk on probation and in 1960 was confirmed or otherwise became a permanent employee of the Bank. However, according to the Bank, the petitioner's services were liable to be terminated by giving him 3 months' notice or salary in lieu thereof and that after the probationary period was over and whilst the petitioners service was governed by the "Desai Award", his services were liable to be terminated by giving him 3 months' notice or by giving him 3 months' salary in lieu of the notice period. In 1965, the Bank of Baroda Ltd. (Bombay) Employees No. II Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. (referred to hereafter as "the Society") was formed. The petitioner was a promoter, and thereafter became a Member of the Managing Committee of the Society. In 1969, certain members of the Society approached the Registrar of Co-operative Societies to have an enquiry into the affairs of the Society under S. 83 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (referred to hereafter as "the Societies Act"). Mr. B. S. Gokral, advocate, was appointed enquiry officer. On 15th April, 1970, he submitted his report to the Registrar. In that report, the enquiry officer made several derogatory observations against the petitioner and certain other office-bearers of the society, of trickery treachery, cheating fraud and misfeasance pertaining to the affairs and funds of the society running into a large amount. He came to a prima facie finding against them. The correctness or otherwise of the findings of the enquiry officer are not germane for the purpose of this judgment. On 21st November, 1970, a letter was addressed by the Societies Advocate to the petitioner stating that the Society would move a resolution for the petitioners expulsion from the Society. On 27th December, 1970, a special general body meeting of the Society was held. A resolution was moved for the petitioner's expulsion. However, after a discussion of 5 hours, it was adjourned sine die. On 6th April, 1971, the Bank addressed a letter to the petitioner setting out the findings of the enquiry officer against the petitioner and called upon the petitioner to submit his written explanation. By his letter dated 14th April, 1971 the petitioner submitted his explanation, stating, inter alia that the findings of the enquiry officer were yet to be tested before an Officer to be appointed under S. 88 of the Societies Act by the District Deputy Registrar, that after a discussion of 5 hours, the resolution for his expulsion had been adjourned sine die at the Special General Meeting of the Society held on 27th December, 1970 and that at the present stage it would not be proper for the petitioner to comment on the report of the enquiry officer as he would be required to make a statement in a quasi-judicial enquiry under S. 88 of the Societies Act, as also that the question of any loss to the Society was sub-judice. On 11th August, 1971, a letter was addressed by the Bank to the petitioner, terminating with immediate effect his services for loss of confidence in him. Hence the present petition. However, to complete the narration of events, on 6th November, 1971, after the present petitioner was filed, Mr. L. C. Chogle was appointed by the District Deputy Registrar under S. 88 of the Societies Act to hold the necessary enquiry. On 24th April, 1978, Mr. Chogle made his report vitiating the enquiry held by the enquiry officer Mr. Gokral on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice and in view thereof did not go into the merits of the matter. Learned counsel inform me that an appeal has been filed by the Society against Mr. Chogle's and that the appeal is pending.