RAYALASEEMA GRAMEENA BANK Vs. D PATTABHIRAMUDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent in the appeal is the writ petitioner who had succeeded before the Honourable Single Judge in getting his order of termination of service passed on 19-11-1983 quashed. The appeal has been preferred by the appellant-Rayalaseema Grameena Bank.

(2.) The respondent was appointed as a Probationary Officer in the Bank on 1-4-1981. The conditions of probation, as per the order of appointment, inter alia were that, the probation would be in the first instance for two years extendable for further periods not exceeding one year and that if his work, conduct and progress are found in all respects satisfactory, he would be confirmed in the service of the Bank but otherwise his services would be dispensed with. In para 8 of the order of appointment, the stipulation was that the service of the respondent during the probationary period could be terminated at any time, without assigning any reason, giving three months notice or salary in lieu of that. Likewise, if the respondent desired to resign from service, he was to give three months notice or salary in lieu of that. On 6th January, 1982, the respondent received a letter of commendation from the Chairman for having reached and surpassed the annual report target fixed for the branch. On 19th July, 1982, a memorandum was issued to him by the General Manager expressing dissatisfaction about his work and intimating the regret of the management that he had not evinced any interest to regulate the accounts. In the memorandum the respondent was given final chance for regularising all the accounts by the end of the month. On 9th March, 1983 he was issued with direction to appear for interview before the Interviewing Committee on 20th March, 1983, to consider his suitability and confirmation in the service of the bank. In pursuance of that interview, on 26-3-83 i.e., before the expiry of the initial two years probationary period, the probation was extended by six months in view of his unsatisfactory performance. While he was continuing on probation, a complaint had been received from the villagers against him. Thereafter a charge-sheet was issued to him on 11th May, 1983 for having shown discourtesy to a customer of the bank. Petitioner submitted his explanation whereafter the proceedings was not continued. On 1-10-1983 his services were again extended by telegram but before the expiry of one month, the order followed on 19-11-1983, purporting to have been made under Regulation No. 8 (3) (a) of the Bank, that his services were terminated with immediate effect for not being found fit for confirmation. In making the order, the respondent was not issued with any notice, but one month's emoluments was remitted to his bank account in lieu of one month's notice.

(3.) Having regard to the fact that the termination of services of the respondent did not become effective because of an order of stay passed by this Court and he has been continuing in service till date, we had requested the learned Counsel for the appellant to find out the fitness of the respondent for continuance in bank service, it is submitted by him to-day, that even while the respondent was continuing in the service of the bank, he was placed under departmental proceedings by issuing of charge-sheet on 24-6-1992 and in the enquiry having been found guilty, the penalty of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect was imposed upon him. During the enquiry, the respondent had admitted all the charges. Even thereafter a further proceeding has been initiated against himby charge-sheet dated 11-6-1994 on the complaint that while working in the capacity as Manager, he is alleged to have sanctioned loans to himself and to one of his clerks against deposit of gold which was subsequently found to be spurious. Because of such facts, Mr. Srinivasa Murthy, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the respondent is not entitled to any equitable consideration. To our querry, Mr. Murthy has stated that the conduct of the two proceedings against the respondent are matters of record and he has also undertaken to file an affidavit mentioning such facts. Wehave permitted him to file the affidavitby tomorrow.