LACHHMAN DASS AGGARWAL Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was an employee of the Punjab National Bank, a nationalised bank. On December 6, 1974, the Assistant Regional Manager of the bank issued a notice to the petitioner asking him to explain why disciplinary action should not be taken against him for certain alleged malpractices. It was stated in the notice that certain complaints had been received against the petitioner, that the complaints had been investigated by an inspector and that certain malpractices were noticed. The malpractices were stated to be as follows I

(2.) THE petitioner was asked to submit his explanation within ten days from the receipt of the notice. On December 20, 1974, the petitioner requested the Regional Manager to furnish him with copies of the complaints said to have been made against him as also copies of the statements of the parties. The petitioner mentioned that there was no such attestation by any Oath Commissioner as stated in the notice. The petitioner further mentioned that the area manager, Rohtak, had visited Mohindergarh twice on a fact-finding mission. The petitioner requested that copies of the reports of the inspector and the area manager might also be supplied to him. To this letter, the assistant regional manager sent a reply advising the petitioner to call at the office on any working day " for consulting the relevant records". The petitioner appears to have made a request to the regional manager that he should be allowed to copy the documents at the time of inspecting them. By his letter dated Febrdary 20, 1975, the regional manager informed the petitioner that bis request for copying the documents was untenable. He was told that he could only go through the relevant records and submit his explanation. He was given seven days' time for submitting his explanation. On February 26, 1975, the petitioner once again wrote to the regional manager bringing to his notice the circumstance that in all previous enquiries copies of documents were made available. He also brought to the notice of the regional manager that the enquiry by the inspector was irregular and illegal as the enquiry was conducted behind his back without affording him any opportunity for defending himself. He pointed out that the enquiry by the area manager was not vitiated in any such manner. He reiterated his request for supply of documents. The regional manager by his letter dated April 7, 1975, once again denied the request for supply of copies and called upon the petitioner to submit his explanation within ten days. On April 26, 1975, the petitioner once again requested the regional manager to furnish him with copies of the relevant documents. He denied the allegations made against him. He further stated that the alleged statements referred to in the original show-cause notice were never "attested" as claimed. The " attestations" were fabricated and forged. He also submitted that the area manager who enquired into the matter earlier had found that the so-called attestations were all forged, the persons who had appeared before him having so stated. On July 20, 1976, the regional manager issued a notice to the petitioner proposing the punishment of discharge from service, holding that the petitioner's explanation was unsatisfactory. The petitioner sent a reply repeating his request for copies of documents. The request was not granted and finally an order was passed discharging the petitioner from the service of the bank, without affecting terminal benefits. It is this order of discharge from service that is questioned in this application for the issue of a writ.

(3.) CONSIDERABLE argument was advanced on the question whether the Punjab National Bank was an " authority " within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The question whether the bank is an "authority" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution would be relevant if the basis of the claim of the petitioner was an infringement of a fundamental right. The definition of the expression " the State " occurring in Article 12 of the Constitution is expressly confined in its application to Part III of the Constitution only. Since the basis of the claim of the petitioner in the present case is not an infringement of a fundamental right, the question whether the bank is an " authority" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution is not really relevant. We may, however, state that we do not have any doubt that the Punjab National Bank which is a nationalised bank is an "authority " within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. By the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, undertakings of certain banking companies were acquired by the Government of India and transferred to the "corresponding new banks" created by the Act as body corporates. The Punjab National Bank Ltd. was one of the banking companies whose undertaking was acquired and transferred to the corresponding new bank called " Punjab National Bank ". It will be useful to refer to some of the provisions of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970. The "existing bank " is defined as banking company specified in column 1 of the First Schedule while the " corresponding new bank " is defined, in relation to the existing bank, as the body corporate specified against the said bank in column 2 of the First Schedule. Section 3 of the Act provides that on the commencement of the Act there shall be constituted such corresponding new banks as are specified in the First Schedule with the same paid up capital as that of the existing bank. Section 3 (3) further provides that the entire capital of each new bank shall stand vested, and allotted, to the Central Government. Section 3 (4) prescribes that every corresponding new bank shall be a body corporate. Section 4 provides for the transfer of the undertaking of every existing bank and the vesting of the same in the corresponding new bank. Section 6 provides for payment of compensation by the Central Government to every existing bank whose undertaking is transferred to the corresponding new bank. Section 7 prescribes that the head office of each new corresponding bark shall be at such place as may be specified by the Central Government and that the general supervision, direction and management of affairs and business of the corresponding new bank shall vest in a " board of directors ". Section 7 (3) empowers the Government to appoint the first board of directors in consultation with the Reserve Bank of India. Section 9 empowers the Government to make a scheme for carrying out the provisions of the Act including the constitution of the board of directors. The Central Government is also vested with the power to amend the scheme in consultation with the Reserve Bank. Section 8 obliges every corresponding new bank to be guided, in the discharge of its duties, by such directions in regard to the matters of operation involving public interest, as the Central Government may give in consultation with the Reserve Bank. Section 10 provides for the audit of the corresponding new bank and requires the auditor to make his report to the Central Government. The Central Government is required to lay the auditor's report before both Houses of Parliament. Section 10 (7) also provides that the balance of profits of the corresponding new bank should be transferred to the Central Government. Section 11 provides for the deeming of corresponding new bank as an Indian company for the purpose of the Income-tax Act. Section 18 provides that no provision of law regarding winding up of corporations shall apply to a corresponding new bank. Section 19 empowers the board of directors of a corresponding new bank, after consultation with the Reserve Bank and with the previous sanction of the Central Government to make regulations providing for all matters for which provision is expedient for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of the Act. In particular the board of directors are empowered by Section 19 (2) (d) to make regulations prescribing conditions or limits subject to which the corresponding new bank may appoint officers, officials, or other employees and fix their remuneration and terms and conditions of service. Section 16 grants immunity to directors, officers and employees of a corresponding new bank against all losses and expenses incurred by them in or in relation to the discharge of their duties except such as have been caused by their own wilful act or default. The question for consideration is whether, in view of these provisions, the Punjab National Bank is or is not an "authority" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution.