The judgment established that a dispute lacking a public law element and governed by an ordinary contract of service is not amenable to challenge under Article 226 of the Constitution.

JUDGMENT :

Amrita Sinha, J.

1. The petitioner was employed with the Sonali Bank Limited. He was appointed in the year 2005 and confirmed in service in the year 2006. Relying upon an unsigned and undated communication allegedly made by a well wisher a show cause was issued to the petitioner in the month of May, 2022 and the petitioner was directed to show cause why administrative and legal action will not be taken against him as he submitted fake certificate at the time of joining where his date of birth is incorrectly recorded. The petitioner replied to the show cause within the stipulated time period. The employer lodged a complaint before the police and he was arrested and later obtained bail from the learned Court in April, 2023. Charge sheet was filed against the petitioner in January, 2023.

2. The petitioner was suspended on 8th May, 2023. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner on 16th June, 2023 praying for setting aside or revoking the order of suspension. During pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner has been dismissed from service on 29th November, 2023.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the bank ought not to have taken steps in response to an anonymous complaint. The complaint itself appears to be plainly false and incorrect. It has been submitted that the petitioner has already served the bank from 2005 till his date of suspension on 8th May, 2023 without any blemish from any corner. The petitioner at the time of appointment relied upon the school leaving certificate wherein his date of birth is recorded as 2nd October, 1976. The date of birth in the school leaving certificate of Gudhia High School (HS) relying upon which his service has been dismissed is a false document. The petitioner was not a student of the said school. The petitioner was a student of Kharera A.N.H.M. High School (HS) wherein his date of birth has been record as 2nd October, 1976. No proceeding whatsoever was initiated against the petitioner to dismiss him from service.

4. Prayer has been made for permitting the petitioner to rejoin service as he is a family man and his family is starving as the petitioner is without any salary after the order of dismissal was passed.

5. The petitioner relies upon the details of the Sonali Bank Limited in support of the submission that the bank will be amenable to the writ jurisdiction despite the fact that the same is a foreign bank. Reference has been made to the order dated 9th April, 2021 passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in WPO 142 of 2921 (Sonali Bank Employees Association & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors.) wherein the Hon’ble Court was pleased to entertain the writ petition filed by the employees association of the said bank.

6. Reliance has also been placed on the judgment passed by this Court in the matter of M/s. Pearson Drums and Barrels Private Limited vs. The General Manager, Consumer Education and Protection Cell of Reserved Bank of India & Ors. wherein the Court was pleased to entertain the writ petition against Indus Ind Bank.

7. The petitioner also relies upon the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of St. Marys Education Society & Ors. Vs. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava & Ors. reported in (2023) 4 SCC 498 wherein the Hon’ble Court held that judicial review of the action challenged by a party can be had by resort to the writ jurisdiction only if there is a public law element and not to enforce a contract of personal service. It was held that application under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable against a person or a body discharging public duties or public functions. Individual wrong or breach of mutual contract without having any public element as its integral part cannot be rectified through a writ petition. It was further held that writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked in respect of matters relating to service where they are not governed or controlled by statutory provisions.

8. The respondent bank opposes the prayer of the pet