RATTANLAL KOUL Vs. J AND K BANK LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was working as Branch Manager of the Jammu andKashmir Bank Limited, Hyderabad. While so, a charge-sheet containing 11 charges was framed against the petitioner and the petitioner was asked to show cause. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 12-1-1984 denying the charges. An Enquiry Officer was appointed and he conducted the enquiry. One charge was dropped and two charges were held partly proved. On the basis of the said findings of the Enquiry Officer, a second show- cause notice was issued by the Bank to the petitioner on 16-5-1984 calling upon him to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service. The petitioner submitted his explanation in June, 1984. But the Disciplinary authority passed an order dated 7-6-1985 accepting the recommendations of the Enquiry Officer and holding that the petitioner deserved dismissal from service in view of the findings as well as the past record and conduct of the petitioner where he was awarded punishment on the ground of proved case of embezzlement etc. Against the said order of dismissal, the petitioner submitted an appeal before the Appellate Authority and the said appeal was rejected by an order dated 22-5-1986. The order of the Appellate authority was communicated to the petitioner by the Manager of the Srinagar Branch stating that the appellate authority had rejected his appeal. Questioning the order of dismissal and the rejection of the appeal, the petitioner preferred this writ petition.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner raised four points in thiswrit petition. The first submission was that the findings arrived at by the Enquiry Officer on the charges held proved or partly proved are such that no reasonable person could arrive at such conclusions The second point was that the order of Disciplinary authority dated 7-6-1985 does not give any reasons what-so-ever. The third was that the order of the Appellate authority dpes not give any reasons. The fourth was that the punishment of dismissal was passed not only upon the findings against the petitioner in the enquiry but also taking into account the past conduct of the petitioner in relation to an embezzlement charge much earlier and that the past conduct was not the subject matter of the show-cause notice and the petitioner was later exonerated.

(3.) The learned counsel for the respondent-Bank, while contendingthat the above submissions are not correct, has raised a further question that the Jammu & Kashmir Bank is a company and is not amenable to Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel has relied upon certain unreported decisions of Jammu & Kashmir High Court holding that a writ does not lie 'against the respondent-Bank. He contends that the writ petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed.