P MALLAIAH Vs. ANDHRA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three writ petitions can be disposed of by a common order. The petitioners have been working as members of the sub-staff (peons) in different branches of the Andhra Bank, respondent herein, in Vijayawada town since 1948 and they claim to be permanent employees. While so, the respondent bank issued a charge memo on 23/02/1979 to each of the petitioners alleging misconduct of committing fraud and directed the petitioners to submit their explanations. It was alleged that the petitioners who are the employees of the respondent-bank introduced some fictitious persons who successfully cheated the branches of the Bank by pledging spurious gold ornaments as genuine and receiving large amounts of money. Further details may not be necessary for the purpose of these writ petitions. To a charge memo the petitioners submitted their explanations. An enquiry officer was appointed who submitted his report. In this report the enquiry officer however held that charges are not conclusively proved, but added that the petitioners acted in a negligent manner in introducing strangers and cheats without realising the consequences. The Bank thereafter conducted its own investigation and was satisfied that the petitioners were responsible for the disappearance of evidence; and having lost confidence in the petitioners, came to the conclusion that it would be a great risk to continue the petitioners in the services of the Bank. The Bank accordingly discharged the petitioners from the service of the Bank by the impugned orders dated 30/07/1981, under Para 522 of Sastry Award by paying three months salary in lieu of notice. The petitioners were paid gratuity, and full pay and allowances for the period of suspension treating the period as duty. Each of the petitioners has challenged the impugned order discharging him from services.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the action of the respondent Bank in discharging the petitioners from service amounts to dismissal and without conducting a regular disciplinary enquiry the Bank authorities cannot simply discharge them from service purporting to exercise powers under Para 522 of Sastry Award. If a disciplinary enquiry is held, the employee will have an adequate opportunity to defend himself and will have many safeguards, and if an employee is to be discharged without any such enquiry for the alleged misconduct or negligence, the termination would be based upon subjective satisfaction of the appropriate authority who may act arbitrarily and therefore, even if there is such a power, viz., to discharge the employees from service without any enquiry, it is violative of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel further submitted that in the instant case a charge sheet was in fact issued and an enquiry was conducted and the authorities did not act upon the said report, but resorted to terminate the services of the petitioners by discharging them from service and therefore, according to the learned counsel, the petitioners are in fact punished for their alleged misconduct without holding a disciplinary enquiry, which is illegal. The learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submitted that the Bank discharged the petitioners from service under Para 522(1) of Sastry Award and that the termination of the services of the petitioners is not mala fide and colourable.

(3.) The main question that arises for consideration is whether the respondent-management has power to discharge the employees without any enquiry and if so, whether the same is violative of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The learned counsel for the respondent relied on judgment of the Supreme Court and the High Courts to show that the management is vested with power to discharge an employee from service after fulfilling the necessary conditions and it is not always necessary to resort to disciplinary enquiry before terminating the services. In Bombay Municipality v. P. S. Malvenkar [1978-II L.L.J. 168] the Supreme Court observed that the question whether a particular order terminating the service of an employee is by way of punishment or not has to be determined on the facts and circumstances of each case and the form of the order is not decisive of the matter. Their Lordships, however, further held thus :