Judgment

VENKATACHALIAH, J.:- The special leave Petition. directed against the order dt. 1-2-1983 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in C.W.P. 5003 of 1982 and the writ petition invoking Art. 32 of the Constitution, pertain to the same subject-matter and raise the question as to the constitutional validity of Regn. 10(2)(a) of the Gurgaon Gramin Bank (Staff) Services Regulations 1980 (Regulations for short) enabling a termination-simpliciter and consequently, of the validity of the order dt. 17-8-1982 of Gurgaon Gramin Bank (Bank for short) teminating the petitioners services as Branch Manager in exertion of the said Regulation.

2. Petitioner was selected by the Gurgaon Gramin Bank as a Trainee Branch Manager and after training, appointed as Branch Manager on probation at its Mohna Branch with effect from 16-10-1978. The period of probation was one year in the first instance, with power to the Bank to extend the probation for a further period of six months at the end of which the probationer would either be confirmed if he was found suitable or if, otherwise, discharged from service. The 18 months period representing the outermost limit of the permissible period of probation expired sometime in April, 1980 Petitioner was not discharged; nor an express order of confirmation made. Petitioner continued in service.

Apparently, the course of petitioners service did not run smooth. There were allegations against him - some of them quite serious - of acts of bad faith including that he was not disbursing the loans granted to the gramin borrowers the full sanctioned-amounts, but was helping himself to some portions of it. The Bank asked the Supdt. of Police, Faridabad to look into these allegations. In April, 1981, the Supdt. of Police, it would appear, reported that the allegations according to him were substantiated and commended disciplinary action against the petitioner. There was also an allegation that petitioner had refused to accept the second set of keys of the cash chest front another official who was in custody of the keys and who was not attending the Bank that day, as a result of which the cash could not be opened on a working day.

However, the bank did not initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner; but on 17-8-1982 the Bank terminated his services invoking and relying upon the said Regn. 10(2)(a) which enabled a termination-simpliciter. Petitioners appeal to the Board of Directors of the Bank was turned down on 28-8-1982. Thereafter, petitioner moved the High Court in CWP No. 5003 of 1982. The High Court dismissed the writ petition by its order dt.1-2-1983, now under appeal.

3. Special Leave is granted and both the appeal and the writ petition are taken up for final hearing and disposed of by this judgment. We have heard Dr. Chitale learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Shri K. N. Bhat learned senior counsel for the Bank.

On the contentions urged at the hearing, the questions that fall for consideration are. first, whether petitioner become a full member of the service upon the expiry of the period of probation secondly, whether the impugned Regn. 10(2)(a) is unconstitutional as granting an arbitrary and unregulated power and therefore violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution and that, consequently, the purported termination of the services of the petitioner must be held to be void and non est; and thirdly, if the first two questions are held in his favour, whether petitioner is entitled to be reinstated in service with full back-salary.

The point last-mentioned, arises in the conext of the submissions of Shri Bhat that, at all events, even if the termination is held to be invalid, the petitioner who works in a managerial cadre should not be thrust on the Administration as the petitioner had forfeited its confidence and that the award of such monetary-compensation as this court might deem fit would be appropriate relief in lieu of reinstatement.

4. The first point need not detain us. The period of th