VINOD BEHARI DIXIT Vs. UNITED COMMERCIAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Rule arises out of an application under Art. 226 of the Constitution in the following circumstances:

(2.) On July 19, 1969 the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act 1970 commenced its operation, and the undertakings of the bank vested in the corresponding new bank, the United Commercial Bank, the respondent No. 1 herein and R. B. Shah was appointed the Custodian of the new Bank. The petitioner attended the Managers' Conference at Varanasi on Jan. 31, 1970 where, for securing the purpose of nationalisation certain guidelines to meet the needs of common men and small borrowers were given. The petitioner-drew the attention of the Custodian to the delay caused in sanctioning proposals for loan but the same was interpreted by the Regional Manager, K. V. Shenoy as complaints against him though the petitioner all through acted bona fide and in good faith. The petitioner went on. leave in Feb. 1971 when K. V. Shenoy at the request of the Officers like K. L.Gupta and M. M. Batra visited Lucknow. It was represented to Shenoy that the godown held by the bank was vacated for the interest of the petitioner and further the petitioner was having his house constructed taking advantage of his position as a Manager. After he joined his office from leave the petitioner was directed to explain the facts about letting the godown which was duly attended to. The petitioner started the construction of his house in May 1970 with his savings and by borrowing from private persons and societies. This was exploited by K. L. Gupta and M. M.Batra who too with a view to cause serious loss and injury to the petitioner hatched a conspiracy with Ravinder Seth and a false complaint was lodged in the name of fictitious person. The petitioner came to know (though the source was not disclosed) that the matter was already discussed by Gupta with Desai and both of them were biased against him with ulterior motive. There was some enquiry by the Chief Accountant in respect of some delay in payment by the Bank in its Lucknow branch to the Food Corporation for which the petitioner was not responsible and all these steps were taken to humiliate and take revenge on petitioner while the pettitioner's increment due on April 1971 was stopped without reason. The petitioner in Oct. 1971 was elected as General Secretary of the United Commercial Bank Officers Association and in that capacity he issued certain circulars to the members about outstanding issues which also caused annoyance to the management including Desai who became by then the Custodian of the Bank.

(3.) On Dec. 14, 1971 the petitioner reieived a letter issued by the Bank under the signature of its General Manager, charging him with various acts of omission and commission, severe dereliction of duty, wilful misappropriation of money, unauthorised grant of accommodation to parties, wilful and deliberate exceeding of authority, gross violation of bank's rules relating to its business and other irregularities and gross abuse of the position as Manager of Bank's branch at Hazaratganj, Lucknow. It is necessary to enumerate shortly the charges in seriatim as follows: