ALLAHABAD BANK OFFICERS ASSOCIATION Vs. ALLAHABAD BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT 2, Dayal Dass Khanna, joined the Allahabad Bank (Respondent 1) as a Clerk on 24.7.1946. He was promoted as an Officer on 15.9.1967 and his further promotions from Scale I to Scale II and from Scale II to Scale III in the Officer's Cadre were on 1.7.1976 and 1.10.1977 respectively. On - 15.8.1979 he was elected as a General Secretary of the Allahabad Bank Officers) Association (Appellant 1), a registered trade union duly recognised by the Bank. In November 1982 he was considered for further promotion from Scale III to Scale IV but was denied promotion because he was found lacking in potential. In March 1984 a Special Committee was constitued under Regulation 19 of the Allahabad Bank (Officers) Service Regulations, 1979 to review the cases of 20 Officers, including Appellant 2, for recommending whether they should be retired earlier or allowed to serve till the age of superannuation. The committee unanimously recommended compulsory retirement of Appellant 2 and the Chairman and Managing Director of the Bank agreeing with; the Said' recommendation passed an order on 18.5.1984 for compulsorily retiring Appellant 2. By an order of the same date passed by the Bank Appellant. 2 was retired with effect from 24.5.1984.

(2.) THE appellants -challenged that order by filing a writ petition in the Madhya Pradesh High Court. It was challenged mainly on the ground that it casts a stigma on the character and dignity of Appellant 2 and, therefore, in reality it is an order of punishment which could have been passed under Allahabad Bank Officers Employees. (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 after holding a regular departmental enquiry and as no such enquiry was held it is illegal and void. The order was also challenged on the ground that it was arbitrary and mala fide. The High Court rejected all the contentions and dismissed the writ petition.

(3.) IT was submitted by the learned counsel that recitals in the impugned order that there was "want of application to Bank's work and lack of potential and he has also been found not dependable" are stigmatic as they cast aspersions -on the conduct, character and integrity of Appellant 2. The High Court rejected this contention by observing that: According to us, this casts no stigma, but only assesses the work of Petitioner 2 for determining his compulsory retirement.". It was submitted that this view of the High Court is wrong as it did not apply the right test for finding out whether those statements are stigmatic or not. It was further submitted that whoever reads the order of compulsory retirement would consider that there is something wrong with the conduct of Appellant 2 or his capacity to work. Therefore, the High Court should have held that though the impugned order purports to be an order of compulsory retirement it is really an order of punishment. In support of his submission the learned counsel relied upon several decisions of this Court. We will refer to those decisions only which are relevant and useful for deciding this appeal.