JUDGMENT

G.T.NANAVATI, J.

(1) APPELLANT 2, Dayal Dass Khanna, joined the Allahabad Bank (Respondent 1 as a Clerk on 24/7/1946. He was promoted as an Officer on 15/9/1967 and his further promotions from Scale 1 to Scale II and from Scale II to Scale III in the Officers Cadre were on 1/1/1976 and 1/10/1977 respectively. On 15/8/1979 he was elected as a General secretary of the Allahabad Bank Officers Association (Appellant 1, a registered trade union duly recognised by the Bank. In November 1982 he was considered for further promotion from Scale III to Scale IV but was denied promotion because he was found lacking in potential. In March 1984 a Special Committee was constituted under Regulation 19 of the Allahabad Bank (Officers) Service Regulations, 1979 to review the cases of 20 Officers, including Appellant 2, for recommending whether they should be retired earlier or allowed to serve till the age of superannuation. The Committee unanimously recommended compulsory retirement of Appellant 2 and the Chairman and Managing Director of the Bank agreeing with the said recommendation passed an order on 18/5/1984 for compulsorily retiring Appellant 2. By an order of the same date passed by the Bank Appellant 2 was retired with effect from 24/5/1984

(2) THE appellants challenged that order by filing a writ petition in the Madhya Pradesh High court. It was challenged mainly on the ground that it casts a stigma on the character and dignity of Appellant 2 and, therefore, in reality it is an order of PUNISHMENt which could have been passed under the Allahabad Bank Officers Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 after holding a regular departmental enquiry and as no such enquiry was held it is illegal and void. The order was also challenged on the ground that it was arbitrary and mala fide. The High court rejected all the contentions and dismissed the writ petition

(3) IN view of the findings recorded by the High court and the reasons given in support thereof the learned counsel for the appellants has rightly not pressed the other contentions which were raised before the High court and, therefore, the only question which we have to consider in this appeal is whether the order of compulsory retirement casts a stigma on Appellant 2. The learned counsel submitted that the High court has committed an error in holding that it does not. It is not in dispute that the letter dated 18/5/1984 is the only order of compulsory retirement served upon Appellant 2. The material part of it reads as under:

"IN terms of the first proviso of Regulation 19.1 of Allahabad Bank Officers Service Regulations, 1979 followed by the guidelines of government of India, Ministry of Finance, Banking Division, on the said Regulation, a Special Committee in terms of Rule 2 of the aforesaid Regulation was constituted for the review of your case for your retirement from the Banks service or otherwise. The Special Committee unanimously recommended for your retirement from Banks service. Accordingly, the Chairman and Managing Director, who is the competent authority in this respect has passed the following order:

I agree particularly, on the views expressed regarding his want of application to Banks work and lack of potential. He has also been found not dependable. Hence retire him immediately as recommended.

THE Bank, therefore, retires you from its service with effect from 24/5/1984. Please hand over charge to Shri C.L. Malhotra as at the close of business on 23/5/1984 on which date you stand relieved from Banks service."

(4) IT was submitted by the learned counsel that recitals in the impugned order that there was "want of application to Banks work and lack of potential" and "he has also been found not dependable" are stigmatic as they cast aspersions on the conduct, character and integrity of Appellant 2. The High court rejected this contention by observing that:

"ACCORDING to us, this casts no stigma, bu