Back
1971 Supreme(Del) 32
High Court Of Delhi
P.L.BHARDWAJ - Appellant
Versus
STATE BANK OF INDIA - Respondent
Civil 711 of 1970
Decided On : 01/29/1971
A.R.LAL, B.DUTTA, F.Anthony, H.L.TIKKU, R.M.MEHTA, RISHIKESH
The service rules framed by the State Bank of India were not statutory rules and conferred no statutory status on the employer, and therefore, the petitioner's services were terminated in breach of a term of the contract of service and not in breach of a mandatory obligation imposed by statute.
Headnote:
STATE BANK OF INDIA (OFFICERS AND ASSISTANTS) SERVICE RULES - RULE 18 - TERMINATION OF SERVICE - WRIT JURISDICTION - CONTRACT OF SERVICE - STATUTORY RULES - ARTICLES 14 AND 16 OF THE CONSTITUTION - DISCRIMINATION - SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE - TENURE OF SERVICE - WRIT COURT'S JURISDICTION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a confirmed Staff Officer, Grade III in the State Bank of India, challenged the order of the Bank terminating his services under rule 18 of the State Bank of India (Officers and Assistants) Service Rules, 1957. He was terminated after an incident at the Staff Training College, Hyderabad, where he was undergoing training.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the State Bank of India was an authority amenable to the writ jurisdiction, but the service rules framed by it were not statutory rules and conferred no statutory status on the employer. The Court further held that the petitioner's services were terminated in breach of a term of the contract of service and not in breach of a mandatory obligation imposed by statute, and therefore, no writ could be issued in the case.
Issues: 1. Whether the State Bank of India was amenable to the writ jurisdiction? 2. Whether the State Bank of India (Officers and Assistants) Service Rules were statutory rules? 3. Whether the petitioner's services were terminated in breach of a mandatory obligation imposed by statute? 4. Whether the petitioner was entitled to a declaration that his employment had never been validly terminated?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The State Bank of India was an authority amenable to the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 2. The State Bank of India (Officers and Assistants) Service Rules were not statutory rules as they were not framed by the Central Government or in consultation with the Reserve Bank and, therefore, there was no limitation on the power of the Bank to revise or change them without reference to any other authority. 3. The petitioner's services were terminated in breach of a term of the contract of service and not in breach of a mandatory obligation imposed by statute, and therefore, no writ could be issued in the case. 4. The petitioner was not entitled to a declaration that his employment had never been validly terminated as the remedy for breach of a contract of service was a claim for damages or specific performance, not a declaration.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, but the parties were left to bear their own costs.
( 1 ) P. L. Bhardwaj, a confirmed Staff Officer, Grade III in the State Bank of India has assailed in this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution the order of the Bank dated June 17, 1970 terminating his services under rule 18 of the State Bank of India (Officers and Assistants) Service Rules, 1957.
( 2 ) THE petitioner graduated from Delhi University in the year 1965. After selection by the Central Recruitment Board in 1966 he was appointed as a Probationary Officer by the State Bank of India (hereafter called "the Bank" ). At the meeting of the Executive Committee of the Central Board of the Bank held on October 30, 1968, he was confirmed in this post with effect from October 1, 1968 under the State Bank of India (Officers and Assistants) Service Rules (hereafter called "the Rules") and was selected to attend an Intermediate Course of Probationary Officers at the Staff Training College (State Bank of India) Hyderabad. While at the training College at Hyderabad, on the New Year s Eve Party, held on the night of December 31, 1968, an incident occurred involving breach of the General Instructions of the College in which, along with others, he was stated to be involved. In consequence, on January 2, 1969, the Principal of the College took action in the matter. Nothing turns on the details of the incident for purposes of decision of this petition and the same need not be set out in any detail. By letter dated January 3, 1969, the Principal 0f the training College terminated the training of the petitioner and one other trainee, A. K. Dutta and directed both of them to return to the local Head Office of the Bank at New Delhi and report to the Secretary and Treasurer. On January 9, 1969, a representation was made by the All India State Bank of India Supervising Staff Federation, Bombay, protesting against the premature termination of the training of these trainees. On January 23, 1969, the Bank issued a notice to the petitioner requiring him to submit his explanation for the alleged contravention of rules 11 and 14 of the General Instructions of the Hyderabad College while under training at that College. On February 4, 1969, the petitioner submitted his explanation. On March 29, 1969, the All India State Bank of India Supervising Staff Federation, Bombay, communicated to the Chairman of the Bank, Central Office, Bombay, a resolution passed by the Federation on March 25, 1969, condemning the action of the Principal of the Training College, Hyderabad, in sending back these two trainees to their circles before the completion of their course. By letter ated Aprild 21, 1969, the petitioner was required by the Bank to report on April 23, 1969 at 11 A. M. to Shri B. K. Mukerjee, Deputy Secretary and Treasurer, State Bank of India, Hyderabad. Thereafter, by letter dated June 20, 1970, the petitioner was informed by the Managing Director of the Bank that the Executive Committee of the Central Board had decided in the meeting held on June 17, 1970 that his services be terminated in terms of rule 18 of the Rules. The petitioner has challenged this decision of the Executive Committee on grounds mentioned in the petition.
( 3 ) IN the counter filed on behalf of the Bank, it is admitted that the petitioner joined services of the Bank and after completion of his training was confirmed as Staff Officer Grade III with effect from October 1, 1968. It is also admitted that he was selected to attend Intermediate Course of Probationary Officers at the Staff Training College (State Bank of India), Hyderabad. After setting out details of the incident at Hyderabad and the part played by the petitioner therein the respondents in the counter stated that after receiving the report of the incident, in order to be informed of its details, the Managing Director of the Bank appointed Shri Mukerjee to investigate the matter and on receipt of his report the Bank, "though concerned about the conduct of the petitioner in allowing himself to be
