DEBASIS DAS Vs. CANARA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition the petitioner, who was an employee of Canara Bank ('Bank' for short) challenges the order of his dismissal from service. Facts relevant for disposal of this petition are as under :

(2.) In May, 1984 while working as an Accountant of the Brabourne Road Branch of the Bank in Calcutta, the petitioner fixed up a quarter at 9, R. N. Das Road, Dhakuria, Calcutta-31 on Bank's lease for three years, with an option of renewal for a further period of one year. Just before the extended period of lease expired-- on April 22, 1988 to be precise - the lessor informed the Bank that she was not willing to extend the period of lease any further. On receipt thereof, the Bank, by a letter dated June 29, 1988 intimated the petitioner that a flat at 10, Gariahata Road, Calcutta had been allotted to him. In reply thereto, the petitioner, by his letter dated July 8, 1988, informed the Bank that compared with the flat he was occupying at R. N. Das Road, the fiat offered to him was too small to accommodate the ten members of his family. He, therefore, requested the Bank to allot him a more spacious quarter or to prevail upon the lessor of the flat, he was occupying, to extend the period of lease. Thereafter, on August 25, 1988, the Bank wrote a letter to the petitioner requesting him to vacate the quarter as the lessor had served a notice upon it for vacating the same and asking him to occupy a flat at 74A, Purnadas Road, Calcutta, which was being offered to him, within a month. In that letter, the petitioner was told that if the above quarter was not suitable to him, he might fix up a suitable quarter as per norms of the Bank after obtaining its prior permission. He was further told that if he did not vacate the flat within the time stipulated, he would be solely responsible for all the consequences thereof. Incidentally, it may be mentioned that in that letter, the Bank also alleged that the petitioner had refused to occupy a number of flats offered to him.

(3.) The petitioner wrote back to say that all his refusals were backed up by specific reason, namely shortage of space and pointed out that while the quarter he was occupying, had an area of approximately 900 sq. ft. none of the quarters offered by the Bank had even an area of 450 sq. ft. He, therefore, requested the Bank to accord him permission to engage a broker to enable him to fix up a quarter. In reply thereto, the Bank, in its letter dated September 21, 1988 drew the attention of the petitioner to its Premises Manual containing the specification of the accommodations available to the Officers of the petitioner's class and the norms regarding engagement of a broker, and instructed him to fix up a quarter, in terms thereof within twenty days from the date of receipt of the letter. He was also told that he would be held personally responsible for any possible action of the lessor against the Bank for getting the quarter vacated.