BALESHWAR PRASAD Vs. AGENT STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order of discharge passed against the petitioner which was communicated to him by letter dated the 28th of August, 1956 written by Mr. S. K. Ghosh, Agent, State Bank of India, Gaya Branch, which is annexure 'E' to the petition. The petitioner was first employed by the Imperial Bank of India as a teller on the 1st January, 1942 and in December, 1953 he was promised to be an assistant to the head cashier. The head cashier was on leave from 2nd January, 1956 to 29th February, 1956 and during his absence the petitioner was appointed to act in his place as the head cashier. There appears to have been some trouble between the petitioner and some members of the cash department staff. The petitioner states that he apprehended planning of some mischief by the staff of the cash department against him. He, therefore, wanted to be relieved from his responsibilities of a head cashier and requested the Agent to take over the keys of the cash from him. Admittedly, the Agent did not accept the keys from him as according to him, it would have been contrary to the bank's instructions and the petitioner was asked to carry on the work of the head cashier until the head cashier returned from leave. It appears that after this incident the petitioner worked normally without any hitch on the next day, that is, on the 23rd February 1958, but on the 24th February 1956, he absented himself from the bank without any notice. He however, came to the bank at about 3 P. M. on that date and ultimately on the next day he placed the keys on the table of the head cashier. The petitioner however, sent an application to the Agent in the evening stating that he had started from his house on the 23rd February 1956, to come to the bank but had gone in another direction in a fit o mental aberration. According to the Agent, he got him examined by the bank doctor on the same day who stated that the petitioner was not found to have anything abnormal except nervous tachycardia. It further appears from the counter affidavit filed by the Agent that on enquiry he discovered that in fact there was a previous history of mental instability of the petitioner and that after the incident referred to above he had been admitted to the Mental Hospital at Ranchi on the 6th April 1956, from where he was discharged on the 30th May 1956.

(2.) The petitioner in his letter dated 1st June 1956, which is marked as exhibit 'F' to the above counter affidavit, stated that he did not remember anything since 21st February 1956, as he was mentally unbalanced and had no control over his brain. Be that as it may, the petitioner was suspended on the 3rd March 1958 until further orders. Thereafter on 22nd of March, 1956, a detailed charge-sheet was submitted on him and he was required to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against him on any or all of those charges. Later on, by letter dated 9th of June, 1956, the petitioner was informed that an enquiry would be held on the 22nd of Tune, 1956, with regard to the charges referred to above by Mr. K.S. Basu, the Staff Officer, and an enquiry was actually held by the said officer on that date in which he was represented by the Assistant General Secretary of the State Bank of India Staff Association in accordance with his request. On report being submitted, the Secretary and Treasurer recommended to the local Board of the State Bank of India to discharge the petitioner from banks service by paying him a month's pay and allowance in lieu of notice, and the Local Board of the State Bank of India decided in accordance with that recommendation to discharge the petitioner. The aforesaid Agent, Mr. S. K. Ghose, thereupon informed the petitioner of the above decision by letter dated the 28th of August, 1956, referred to above. It appears that the petitioner preferred an appeal against the discharge order but it did not prove to be fruitful. The petitioner has thus made this application for issue of a writ as stated above. The opposite party, namely, the Agent, State Bank of India, Gaya Branch, was asked to show cause why the discharge order should not be quashed and cause has been shown by filing a counter-affidavit by him, a reference to which has already been made above.

(3.) The first ground on which the petitioner based his case for issue of a writ is that he was holding a permanent civil post under the Union Government and that the order of discharge has been made in voilation of the provisions of Articles 311, and 320 of the Constitution of India. The State Bank of India is a corporation incorporated under the State Bank of India Act (Act 23 of 1955) to take over the undertaking of the Imperial Bank of India. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of that Act enacts that the Reserve Bank together with such other persons as may from time to time become share-holders in the State Bank in accordance with the provisions of this Act, shall so long as they are share-holders in the State Bank, constitute a body corporate with perpetual succession and a common seal under the name of the State Bank of India, and shall sue and be sued in that name. It is, therefore, contended on behalf of the opposite party that the petitioner could not be said to have held a civil post under the Union Government and Arts. 311 and 320 of the Constitution of India, have no application. The contention is perfectly correct and must prevail as being supported by a Bench decision of this Court in Subodh Ranjan Ghosh v. Sindri Fertilisers and Chemicals Ltd., AIR 1957 Pat 10 (A), in which it was held that the Sindri Fertilisers and Chemicals limited Company is a separate legal entity, has separate legal existence and is a different person altogether, from the subscribers to the memorandum, namely, the President or the Secretary to the Government of India, and that in the eye of the law it is not the agent of the Union Government or trustee for them, and therefore, Arts. 311 and 320 of the Constitution of India have no application to the case of the servants of that company. It may be stated that in view of the above decision Mr. Ghosh appearing for the petitioner did not press this point.