AMAR NATH KHANNA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against an order dated August 1, 1980, passed in Civil Rule No. 8989 (W) of 1978, whereby an application dated June 21,1980, as 5 filed by the appellant petitioner, was disposed of on certain terms. In fact, the prayers as made in the said application and more particularly the one relating to prayer (a) was allowed in entirety and the other prayers were) not allowed in their entirety. The prayers as made would be indicated hereinafter.

(2.) IN or about November, 1940, the petitioner was appointed as a clerk in the services of the imperial Bank of India which, since 1955 and 15 on the coming into force of the State Bank of india Act, 1955, is known as State Bank of india (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Bank')and he was confirmed in that post in May, 1941. It has been stated that thereafter, in or about July, 1952, the petitioner was promoted to the post of an Assistant and 'subsequently he was confirmed as Staff Assistant. It was the further case of the petitioner that he was ultimately promoted to the rank of Officer Grade-I. It was also indicated by the petitioner that initially his terms of service and conditions of employment were governed by the rules governing the service of Assistants in the erstwhile Imperial Bank of India and thereafter by the State Bank of India (Supervising Staff)Service Rules, which came into force on or about July 1, 1975 and more particularly as on invitation of option from the employees whose services stood transferred from the Imperial bank of India to the said Bank, he opted for the Imperial Bank of India Rules.

(3.) IT would appear that by an order dated october 10,1973, the petitioner was put under suspension by an order of the Secretary and treasurer of the said Bank, on the allegations of serious irregularities in the Bill Discounting 10 limit business during the period of 1967-1970. Such order of suspension pending investigation was passed under section 14 of the Imperial bank of India Rules. It was claimed by Mr. Mallick that even though the said order of 1 suspension was pending investigation, such investigation was never made within a reasonable time or diligently and till March 23, 1978 i. e. the day when the writ petitioner was informed by the Chief General Manager of the 20 said Bank that in terms of the decision of the appropriate authority with immediate effect he ceased to be in the said Bank's services and further, he could avail of leave as due to him prior to his suspension, subject to the usual 25 ceiling. It was an admitted fact that the petitioner was paid subsistence allowance at the rate of 50% of his pay and allowances and he retained his residential accommodation on usual charges for sometime and thereafter on payment of penal rent. It has been alleged that neither any proceeding was drawn up nor any chargesheet was served.