Unjust rejection of representation without reason is a violation of natural justice and requires reconsideration.

JUDGMENT :

Heard learned advocate Mr.Vishal B. Mehta for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr.Varun K. Patel for the respondent No.3.

1. Learned advocate Mr.Vishal Mehta has tendered a draft amendment to substitute the respondent- Dena Bank as the same is merged with Bank of Baroda. The same is allowed in terms of the draft. To be carried out forthwith.

2. Learned advocate Mr.Varun Patel states at bar that he has instructions to appear for the Bank of Baroda and therefore, no notice is required to be issued to the substituted respondent.

3. With consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for hearing. The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:

“(a) Be pleased to issue a writ or mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the impugned orders at Annexure F, H and M to this Petition and be further Pleased to direct the respondentbank to reinstate the petitioner even notionally to the service with all consequential benefits;

(b) Pending admission hearing and final disposal of this Petition, be pleased to stay the further operation, implementation and execution of the impugned orders at Annexures F, H and M to this Petition and be further pleased to grant appropriate relief in the interest of justice for notionally reinstating the petitioner till the age of superannuation with consequential effect and benefits.”

4.1. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was dismissed from service pursuant to the charge-sheet dated 11.05.1990. The petitioner challenged the dismissal order before the Appellate Authority. The Appeal of the petitioner was also dismissed by order dated 17th March, 1992.

4.2. Being aggrieved by the dismissal order which was confirmed in Appeal, the petitioner preferred Special Civil Application No.7947 of 1992.

4.3. The petitioner withdrew the said Special Civil Application so as to prefer representations to the concerned authority of the Bank for reconsideration on the point of penalty. The order dated 23rd March, 2006 passed by this Court (Coram: Hon’ble Mr.Justice S.R.Brahmbhatt as his Lordship was then)in Special Civil Application No.7947 of 1992 reads as under :

“1. Shri. A.J. Shastri, learned counsel for the petitioner states under instructions form his client that in view of the additional affidavit filed, petitioner is desirous of making representation to the concerned authority of the Bank for reconsideration on the point of penalty. The respondent Bank may decide the same as expeditiously as possible. In view of this, petitioner is seeking permission to withdraw this petition at this stage.

2. The permission as sought for is granted. Matter is permitted to be withdrawn at this stage. Respondent Bank is expected to decide the representation that may be made by the petitioner, preferably within a period of 3 months from the date of its receipt. With the above observations, petition is disposed of as withdrawn at this stage. Rule is discharged. Interim relief if any stands vacated. No order as to costs.”

4.4. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the petitioner preferred a detailed representation dated 27th March, 2006. However, the respondent- Authority rejected the representation by letter/order dated 22nd July, 2006 which reads as under :

“Shri Kishorbhai C. Trivedi

7, Dena Bank Staff Society,

Near Kiran Park,

Navavadaj,

Ahmedabad.

Dear Sir,

Re : In the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad - Special Civil Application No. 7947 of 1992 - K.C. Trivedi V/s. Dena Bank.

This is in reference to your representation dated 27/03/2006 pursuant to order dated 23/03/2006 of the Hon,ble High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in the matter of SCA No. 7947 of 1992.

In this context, your representation was placed before the Competent Authority to lake a view in the matter. The Competent Authority after going through your representation and taking into. account the facts of the case has observed that, the penalty of Removal from the Bank service wit