SUDARSHAN KUMAR DHALL Vs. CANARA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was working as Branch Manager, Laxmi Commercial Bank Limited (for short referred to as 'lcb' ). The said Bank was amalgamated with the Canara Bank constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970. Prior to the said amalgamation while the petitioner was posted as Manager in LCB at Nagpur, he was placed under suspension by an order dated 24th August, 1984. The petitioner had challenged this suspension in M. P. No. 637/85, filed before this Court. During the pendency of that petition the LCB was amalgamated with the Canara Bank on 24th August, 1985. The respondent/bank informed the petitioner vide letter dated 24-8-1985 (Annexure C to the petition) that in terms of the scheme for amalgamation approved by the Central Government the petitioner had ceased to be an employee of the LCB w. e. f. the commencement of the business on 24-8-1985 and consequently was not an employee of the respondent/canara Bank. In view of this development M. P. No. 637/85 had become infructuous and for this reason the petitioner withdrew the same with permission to file a fresh petition.

(2.) THE petitioner challenged the order excluding him from the employment of Canara Bank in the Supreme Court of India by filing a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. The case was decided on 18-9-1987 along with other connected cases and the judgment is reported in K. I. Shephard v. Union of India, AIR 1988 SC 686. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the exclusion of the employees like the petitioner was illegal and unconstitutional and directed restoration of all such employees to the employment of the respondent-Canara Bank.

(3.) AFTER the aforesaid judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court restoring the petitioner to service, the petitioner reported for duty at the Indore Branch of the respondent/canara Bank on 28-9-1987. His joining report was forwarded to the Dy. General Manager of Bank at Bombay, who by his letters dated 15-10-1987 and 17-10-1987 took a position that the petitioner continued to be under suspension till the completion of the enquiry/criminal proceedings. After waiting for some time for completion of the enquiry the petitioner ultimately filed this petition challenging the action of the respondent/bank in treating the suspension order as revived after the Supreme Court judgment as also continuation of his suspension and enquiry against him. On 13-3-1989, this Court stayed further proceedings in the enquiry until further orders. The order was confirmed on 28-8-1989.