MOHAN LAL DHAR Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present writ petition arises in the following circumstances.

(2.) THE petitioner who is a permanent resident of the State and a citizen of India entered service of the Imperial Bank of India some time in the year 1951, as a clerk. The Imperial Bank of India was later on taken over and vested in the State Bank of India (hereinafter to be referred to as the Bank) by the State Bank of India Act, 1955 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Bank Act) and with this merger the petitioner continued to be an employee of the Bank, though the terms and conditions of his service under the Imperial Bank of India were protected. On 27 -5 -65 the petitioner was suspended by the Agent of the Bank at Srinagar and a departmental inquiry was started against him. On 15 -11 -65 a charge sheet was drawn up against him under para 521 (iv) -(j) of the Shastry Award. On 28 -9 -67 the petitioner was dismissed by the Staff Superintendent -cum -Manager of the Bank at New Delhi, interms of para 521(5) (a) of the Shastry Award read with para 18 -28 of the Desai Award. The petitioner then filed an appeal to the Secretary -Treasurer of the Bank at New Delhi on 27 -11 -67 but this appeal was rejected on 10 -5 -63. On 2 -3 -88 the petitioner wrote to the Agent of the Bank requesting him to allow him to continue in service, but his request was rejected by respondent 2 on 17 -3 -68 and hence this petition. The petitioner has prayed for several reliefs in his petition relating to the order of dismissal passed by the Staff Superintendent of the Bank New Delhi and the order of the appellate authority, i.e. the Secretary -Treasurer of the Bank as also the order of the Agent of the Bank at Srinagar refusing the petitioner to allow him to continue in service. The petitioner contends that all these orders are without jurisdiction and should be quashed by an appropriate writ.

(3.) THE petition was contested by the respondents on the ground that they are not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this court, that both the appellate authority and the Staff Superintendent who passed the order of dismissal were located at Delhi and were beyond the territorial jurisdiction of this court, that proceedings were lawfully taken against the petitioner under the Shastry and the Desai awards and that the dismissal of the petitioner was in accordance with the terms of the awards (Supra) which was binding on the Bank. The respondents further contended that the orders passed by them were legal and could not be quashed.