GOPINATH BHOWMIK Vs. UCO BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner who was a Driver of the Chief Manager of Agartala Branch of UCO Bank has challenged the verbal order of Chief Manager terminating his services and claimed for reinstatement with back wages.

(2.) The relevant facts emerging from the writ petition are that the Chief Manager of Agartala Branch of UCO Bank who is provided with a car for his official use appointed the petitioner for driving the car in the scale of Rs. 1150-25-1350/- with effect from 1-6-89 with other facilities, namely, free uniform, extra duty allowances, ex-gratia, cleaning allowances, leave, loan facilities etc. and he was designated as "personal driver for the Bank's car for Officers." Thus employed as contingent personal driver of the Bank's car with the aforesaid terms and conditions the petitioner had been discharging his duties as a driver of the car of the Chief Manager and he was also assured that his services would be regularised after two years if he could render services sincerely and properly.

(3.) In the meantime, on 3-1-1993 the Respondent No. 3 being on leave one Shri Biswanath Chakraborty, who was the Manager-in-charge asked the petitioner to take some of the staff of the Bank to Melaghar in that car. This was not an official trip. The petitioner, however, went there taking the staff in that car. But unfortunately, while coming back the car met an accident as a result of which not only the car was damaged but the petitioner also sustained some bum injuries on his person and he had to be treated in the hospital for some time. After his recovery the petitioner resumed duties but he was asked to perform some other worka as the car was in the garage undergoing repair. The petitioner, however, as usual attended the office but suddenly on 25-1-1993 the Respondent No. 3 asked the petitioner to submit his (1) appointment letter, (2) driving licence and (3) log book of the car on the ground that those would be required for the purpose of taking compensation from the Insurance Company. The petitioner in honest belief submitted those documents to the Respondent No. 3 without obtaining any receipt thereof. Thus after taking those documents from the petitioner the Respondent No. 3 asked the petitioner on 29-1-1993 to do some immoral works which the petitioner refused to do so. But this refusal infuriated the Respondent No. 3 to such an extent that he asked the petitioner to meet him on that day at 4 P.M. when Respondent No. 3 handed over a cheque for the salary of the petitioner for the month of January 1993 and asked him not to come for duty from the following lay. The petitioner and a few other staff of the Bank approached the Respondent No. 3 to reinstate the petitioner to drive the car but the Respondent No. 3 did not accede to their request. Even the Respondent No. 3 did not allow interview to the petitioner.