BHASKAR CHANDRA SAHOO Vs. CHAIRMAN CUTTACK GRAMYA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this writ application calls in question the legality of the order dated October 12, 1991 in Annexure-1 informing him that his service has been dispensed with as his involvement in a theft is not ruled out.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that he was initially appointed as sweeper-cum-waterman in the Cuttack Gramya Bank in July, 1984 and was posted at Aul Branch of the Bank. The petitioner worked in the said branch and thereafter was transferred and posted at different branches of the bank in the district of Cuttack and his last posting was in Sankhatras Branch, where he was working as Sweeper-cum-Water man. While he was working in the aforesaid branch of the Bank on March 20, 1990 an incident of burglary was committed by some unknown miscreants who broke open the window grills and also tried to break open the iron shelf but failed. Having failed in their attempt to commit theft of the cash, the miscreants took away the calculator kept on the table and one piece of master key. On that date the petitioner was sleeping inside the Bank office and accordingly he was suspected to be involved in commission of the theft. The further case of the petitioner is that the police after investigation submitted final form stating that though allegation of theft is correct, sufficient materials are not available for submission of charge-sheet. The final form was submitted on September 15, 1990. After submission of the final form, no objection was filed by the informant and accordingly the same was filed by the informant and accordingly the same was accepted by the learned J. M. F. C. (Rural), Cuttack, by order dated November 30, 1990. The case of the petitioner is that during the investigation by the police he was not allowed to work by the bank and after submission of final form though he was entitled to be retained in service, the impugned letter in Annexure-1 dated October 12, 1991 was issued informing him that the Bank does not want to retain him in service on the ground that his involvement in the theft case is not ruled out.

(3.) SHRI Mohanty, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner challenged the action of the bank basically on two grounds. (1) The petitioner being a daily wage worker, his service could not have been dispensed with without complying with Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. (2) Since the letter in Annexure- 1 casts a stigma, he should have been given an opportunity of hearing.