SHIVGIRI SWAMI Vs. ICICI BANK LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INVOKING extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court enshrined under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner in this writ petition has assailed the impugned order dt. 29.01.2013 (Annex. 4) passed by the second respondent. Succinctly stated, the factual matrix of this case is that the petitioner at the inception of his service career was appointed as Agriculture Officer (Scale -I) on 04.01.1988 with the erstwhile Bank of Rajasthan Limited. On successful completion of probation period of two years, the petitioner was allotted Permanent Account No. A -1138. While in service of the Bank of Rajasthan Limited, the petitioner was promoted in the cadre of Agriculture Officer (Scale -II) in the year 1995 and in the year 2005 -06 he has availed yet another promotion in the cadre of Agriculture Officer (Scale -III). As per averments in the writ petition, right from the inception of his service career, the petitioner is discharging his duties with utmost satisfaction. The Bank of Rajasthan subsequently amalgamated into the respondent ICICI Bank w.e.f. 12.08.2010 by invoking Section 44 -A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1949'). As a consequence of amalgamation, the petitioner became employee of the respondent ICICI Bank. After amalgamation, the respondents posted the petitioner as Manager -II at Jorhat Branch, Assam, and thereafter he was transferred as Branch Manager, Mandore Krishi Mandi Branch of the Bank at Jodhpur. While serving at Mandore Krishi Mandi Branch at Jodhpur, order impugned was issued whereby services of the petitioner were terminated. The order to this effect was passed on 29.01.2013 (Annex. 4).

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

(3.) WHILE assailing the impugned order Annex. 4, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the order has been passed in gross violation of the principles of audi -alteram -partem, and as such the same is not sustainable. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the order impugned is stigmatic inasmuch as from the recitals contained in the order it is crystal clear that the authority has recorded a finding that the respondent Bank has lost confidence in the petitioner. The precise contention of the petitioner is that the order is stigmatic and before passing the said order neither the petitioner was charge -sheeted nor any disciplinary enquiry was conducted and therefore the order is bad in law and deserves to be quashed and set aside.