P PRABHAKAR RAO Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant-writ petitioner prays for a Writ, order and directions, particularly one in the nature of Certiorari quashing the imposition of two minor penalties of 'censure' dated 12-7-1984 and 30-10-1985, (2) direct the 1st respondent-Bank to consider his case and correct his seniority and quash the orders of promotions of July, 1983, July-August, 1984 and April, 1986 of the Respondents 4 to 16 in the writ petition and (3) restrain the 1st respondent-Bank from holding Departmental Promotion Committee without granting him Proforma promotion in conformity with the seniority-cum-merit on the basis of the seniority list as at June, 1983.

(2.) The relevant facts necessary for adjudication of the writ appeal in brief may be summarised. The appellant-writ petitioner entered the service of the 1st respondent- Punjab National Bank as a Probationary Officer on 2-2-1963 and on successful completion of the probationary period and after having undergone the necessary training, the petitioner was confirmed as on Officer and posted at the Branch Office at Guntur in 1966 as an Accountant. He was thereafter promoted successively as Officer-in-Charge in 1971, Manager Scale II in 1973, Development Manager Scale III in 1976, Area Manager AA Grade in 1977 and Regional Manager Scale IV in September, 1980 and posted in the newly created Region of Bangalore. After the bifurcation of the Bangalore region in February, 1981, the appellant-writ petitioner was posted as Regional Manager for Andhra Pradesh Region with headquarters temporarily at Bangalore till 8-4-1981 on which date the regional office was shifted to Hyderabad. The appellant- petitioner continued as Regional Manager of Andhra Pradesh Region upto 22-8-1983. Admittedly, the appellant petitioner was served with a charge sheet on 7-7-1983 when he was working as Regional Manager, Andhra Pradesh Region at Hyderabad. The appellant submitted his explanation on 8 7-1983. However, an Enquiry Officer was appointed to make enquiry and ultimately the appellant-petitioner was imposed with the punishment of censure'. He preferred an appeal against the said imposition of punishment on 16-7-1984 to the Executive Director of the 1st respondent-Bank and the said appeal was rejected. Thereafter, the appellant preferred a Review Petition and the same was also rejected on 12-8-1986. The appellant-writ petitioner claims and asserts that he had unblemished record of service and the charge sheet dated 2-7-1983 was issued to him with a view to mar his chances for promotion. He submits that he was not promoted in July, 1983 and also in the subsequent selections in July/ August, 1984 as an Officer from Scale IV to Scale V in the 1st respondent-Bank. The 1st respondent-Bank again imposed another penalty of censure' by an order dated 30-10-1985. The appellant-writ petitioner asserts that both the 'censures' were imposed upon him with a mala fide intention of depriving him of promotion. He had made certain serious allegations against the then Chairman of the 1st Respondent-Bank. According to the appellant-petitioner, it was the then Chairman of Bank who was responsible in depriving him of his promotion for which he was legitimately entitled. He asserts that he was not promoted on both the occasions in 1983 and 1984 as the Departmental Promotion Committee has taken into consideration the two punishments of 'censure' imposed upon him by the disciplinary authority.

(3.) The appellant-petitioner further submits that his appeal against the second 'censure' dated 30-10-1985 to the Chairman and Managing Director was rejected on 30-1-1987 without assigning any reasons. It is specifically averred that the 1st respondent Bank constituted two Departmental Promotion Committees, one in July/August, 1984 and another in April, 1986. In August, 1984, the Departmental Promotion Committee approved the selection of Respondents 5 to 8 and in April, 1986, approved the selection of respondents 9 to 16 and consequently, they were promoted as Officers to Scale V. The appellant complains that all the respondents 4 to 16 are juniors to him. It is also stated that his case was not at all considered in April, 1986 and even if it was considered, it was rejected on the basis of the alleged punishments of 'censure' standing against him.