K SATYANARAYANA MURTHY Vs. SYNDICATE BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein, W. P. No. 2581 of 1973, seeks a writ of certioran quashing the proceedings dated 16th March, 1973 of the 1st respondent-Syndicate Bank with its Head Office at Manipal, terminating the services of the petitioner. The petitioner also seeks consequential directions of reinstating the petitioner with all his emoluments and incremental benefits.

(2.) The petitioner is a M.Sc. First Class of the Andhra University. He applied for a junior officer's post in response to an advertisement in the Syndicate Bank. He was selected and on 7th December, 1971, he was given an order appointing him as an officer-trainee. He had accepted the appointment by letter dated 14th December, 1971. Under the letter of appointment, he was to undergo six months trairing as an officer-trainee. He underwent the prescribed course of training. After completion of the training course, he was appointed as a probationary junior officer in the Bank by order dated 4th September, 1972. He joined service on 14th September, 1972. He was posted at Vijayawada at the branch office of the Bank and was working there. He received an order of termination dated 16th March, 1973 invoking rule 36 of the Syndicate Bank Officers' (Conditions of Services) Rules, 1966. The petitioner had raised the main following grounds in the Writ Petition :-

(3.) The main averments in the counter- affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent are: (1) that the writ petition does not lie against the 1st respondent-bank as it is functioning under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings), Act 1970 with perpetual succession and a common seal. (2) Article 311 of the Constitution is not attracted, as the petitioner is not in civil service either tinder the Centre or under the State. (3) The petitioner's service is governed by the service rules of the Bank and those rules constitute a contract of service between the parties. (4) The rules are not statutory rules, having regard to the provisions of section 12 (2) of the Act. (5) The allegation of mala fides is not true. Rule 35 does not apply, as the termination was a discharge simpliciter in pursuance of rule 36. (6) Since the termination is in pursuance of the contract of service, there is no question of invoking principles of natural justice. (7) The termination order cannot be challenged on the ground that it is arbitrary or capricious. (8) Rule 36 does not violate Article 14 of the Constitution.