RAMCHANDRAN K Vs. UCO BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ application the petitioner seeks issuance of an appropriate writ declaring the provisions of promotion policy as contained in circular No. 203 of 1992-93 dated October 1, 1992 and in particular Paragraph 14.1 of the Promotion policy of the respondent-Bank as ultra vires of the Constitution and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and further for a direction to quash the order dated September 5, 1994 issued under the signature of respondent No. 37 the Deputy General Manager whereby the petitioner has been debarred from promotion for the next three years.

(2.) The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass: The respondent, United Commercial Bank is a nationalised bank and is an instrumentality of the Central Government. The Petitioner was appointed as a Stenographer: in the year, 1976 in the said Bank and was transferred and posted from one branch to another branch. In 1994 the petitioner was promoted to Middle Management Grade scale-II and was ordered to be transferred from Jugsalai branch to Bariarjur branch in Munger district. In 1993 the respondent- Bank issued a circular dated September 8, 1993 laying down a policy for deployment of the officers on promotion to different places. The petitioner, however, filed a representation against his posting in Munger on promotion on medical ground. It is stated by the petitioner if in spite of the representation the petitioner is forced to be relieved, then he was prepared to refuse the offer for promotion. The petitioner was, however, served with a letter dated September 5, 1994 issued under the signature of Deputy General Manager (Personnel) under the provisions of paragraphs 14.1 and 14.2 of the Promotion Policy whereby refusal of Promotion by the petitioner was accepted and it was ordered that the petitioner will not be eligible for promotion to MMG scale II for the calendar years, 1995, 1996 and 1997.

(3.) Mr. V. Shivnath, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner assailed the impugned order as being illegal and wholly without jurisdiction. Learned counsel firstly submitted that the petitioner was never posted on promotion and, therefore, para 14.1 of the promotion policy is not applicable in the case of the petitioner. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner simply approached the management not to relieve him till the representation of the petitioner against his posting is considered by the Chairman-cum- Managing Director but even without disposing of the representation the impugned order debarring him from getting promotion has been passed. Learned counsel then submitted that para 14.1 of the Promotion Policy is a colourable exercise of power to punish an employee who in a given circumstance, is not able to accept the posting with an order of promotion and a valuable right of making representation has also been taken away against the order of posting. According to the learned counsel, the order debarring an employee from promotion for the subsequent years, is a punishment which cannot be imposed without initiating a proceeding in accordance with law.