Rattanlal Koul, Branch Manager (Dismissed ). Jammu and Kashmirbank Ltd. , Hyderabad vs Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd. ,represented by its Manager,disciplinary Cell, Central Officesrinagar

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1989 Supreme(AP) 341

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : M.JAGANADHA RAO
Rattanlal Koul, Branch Manager (Dismissed ).Jammu and Kashmirbank Ltd., Hyderabad - Appellant
Versus
Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd.,represented by its Manager,disciplinary Cell, Central Officesrinagar - Respondent
W.P.No.7075/88
Decided On : 08-03-89
Advocates Appeared :
Mr. G.V.L. Narasimha Rao,Mr. D. Linga Rao,Mr. V. Rajendra Babu

Headnote:CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, Arts. 12 and 226 - Powers of High Court to issue writ - Stated. Jammu and Kashmir Bank falls within the purview of State under Art. 12 - Writ for dismissal of an employee by the Bank - Maintainable-Employee cannot be dismissed without affording opportunity basing on his past conduct.
       Held : The Jammu and Kashmir Bank is a State under Art. 12. Afortiorari, it is amenable to Art. 226. In the present case, petitioner is not claiming enforcement of any fundamental right against the Bank and so the stricter test for bringing the Bank under Art. 12 need not be applied but if the stricter tests are themselves satisfied, the Bank will afortiorari be amerable to Art.226 of the Constitution of India.
       Apart from breech of fundamental rights or statutory rules, a Writ could be issued if duties of a public nature are involved. These writs could be issued against "persons or authorities" even if the authorities are not statutory authorities or instrumentalities of the State. Article 226 includes any person or authority doing public duties. The form of the body concerned is not very much relevant. What is relevant is the nature of the duty imposed on the body, no matter by what means the duty is imposed. T he public duly imposed need not be by statue. A relief of declaration that the action of the person or body is illegal could be given with the consequential relief. In the above conditions are satisfied, a writ under Art. 226 could issue even against a Cooperative Society or a private company or a person, and event though these are not State within Art. 12. However, a contract of service, could not be enforced against a non-statutory body though a declaration that the termination was unlawful and consequential monetary benefits could be granted.
       In this case, the past conduct of the petitioner has been definitely taken into account in arriving at the quantum of punishment while passing the final order. The said fact was admittedly not communicated in the second notice. It is the petitioner s case that subsequently the punishment for the earlier incident was substantially modified and he would have brought this to the notice of the disciplinary authority. This amounts to violation of principles of natural justice and, therefore, the order of the disciplinary authority is liable to be quashed.
       AIR 1989 Ori. 31 [F. B.] dissented from.

M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner was working as Branch Manager of the Jammu andkashmir Bank Limited, Hyderabad. While so, a charge-sheet containing 11 charges was framed against the petitioner and the petitioner was asked to show cause. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 12-1-1984 denying the charges. An Enquiry Officer was appointed and he conducted the enquiry. One charge was dropped and two charges were held partly proved. On the basis of the said findings of the Enquiry Officer, a second show- cause notice was issued by the Bank to the petitioner on 16-5-1984 calling upon him to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service. The petitioner submitted his explanation in June, 1984. But the Disciplinary authority passed an order dated 7-6-1985 accepting the recommendations of the Enquiry Officer and holding that the petitioner deserved dismissal from service in view of the findings as well as the past record and conduct of the petitioner where he was awarded punishment on the ground of proved case of embezzlement etc. Against the said order of dismissal, the petitioner submitted an appeal before the Appellate Authority and the said appeal was rejected by an order dated 22-5-1986. The order of the Appellate authority was communicated to the petitioner by the Manager of the Srinagar Branch stating that the appellate authority had rejected his appeal. Questioning the order of dismissal and the rejection of the appeal, the petitioner preferred this writ petition.

( 2 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner raised four points in thiswrit petition. The first submission was that the findings arrived at by the enquiry Officer on the charges held proved or partly proved are such that no reasonable person could arrive at such conclusions The second point was that the order of Disciplinary authority dated 7-6-1985 does not give any reasons what-so-ever. The third was that the order of the Appellate authority dpes not give any reasons. The fourth was that the punishment of dismissal was passed not only upon the findings against the petitioner in the enquiry but also taking into account the past conduct of the petitioner in relation to an embezzlement charge much earlier and that the past conduct was not the subject matter of the show-cause notice and the petitioner was later exonerated.

( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the respondent-Bank, while contendingthat the above submissions are not correct, has raised a further question that the Jammu and Kashmir Bank is a company and is not amenable to Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel has relied upon certain unreported decisions of Jammu and Kashmir High Court holding that a writ does not lie against the respondent-Bank. He contends that the writ petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed.

( 4 ) I shall first take up the question of maintainability of the writpetition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India.

( 5 ) IN recent times, there is considerable mixing up of slightly differentbut overlapping concepts of what is meant by the words person or authority for purposes of Art. 226 of the Constitution of India and what is meant by other authorities in the definition of state in Art. 12 for purposes of giving the benefit of the provisions of Part III of the Constitution of India. It is clear that relief under Art. 226 could be granted for violation of statutory and also other rights which may not amount to fundamental rights. What is a state for purposes of Art. 12 will a fortiori be an authority for purposes of Art. 226 but the converse is not always true. In the present case, petitioner is not claiming enforcement of any fundamental right against the respondent Bank and so the stricter tests for bringing the Bank under art. 12 need not be applied but if the stricter tests are themselves satisfied, the Bank will a fortiori be amenable to Art. 226 of the Constitution of india.

( 6 ) THE recent judgment of a Division Bench of t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document