ORDER :

1. This application has been filed by applicant (respondent No.1 in the petition) seeking to rectify certain mistakes in the order dated 07.11.2023 passed in SBCWP No.4729/2023 passed by this Court vide the main case i.e. SBCWP No.4729/2023 was disposed of.

2. My attention has been drawn to the wrong noting the name of counsel for respondent No.1 in the presence sheet i.e. it ought to have been Siddharth Tatiya instead of Siddhart Tatia. Also, in para 2.2 date of appointment letter ought to be 22.05.2018 instead of 22.05.2021.

3. Furthermore, in para-6.1 of the order, it is stated that a detailed written response dated 09.03.2022 (Annex.7) was given by the petitioner Bank instead of mentioning that detailed written response dated 09.03.2022 (Annex.6) was filed by the petitioner Bank.

4. Likewise, in the last line of para-6.4, the date of impugned order ought to have been mentioned as 17.01.2023.

5. The aforesaid mistakes in the judgment are purely typographical and the same need to be corrected.

6. Registry is directed to take steps for deleting the earlier order and upload the new corrected order.

7. Accordingly, the corrected version of the judgment shall not be read as below:-

“For Petitioner (s) : Mr. Vinay Jain, Mr. Darshan Jain

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Siddharth Tatiya.

ORDER :

07/11/2023

Petition is directed against an order dated 17.11.2022 (Annexure–9) passed by the Court of Prescribed Officer Rajasthan Shops and Commercial Establishment Act, Jodhpur whereby termination of services of the respondent no.1 by petitioner bank was held illegal and it has been directed to reinstate him with consequential benefits.

2. Succinct facts first, as pleaded in the instant writ petition.

2.1 Petitioner is a duly registered banking company, with its registered office located in Mumbai. Respondent No.1 was appointed on the post of Senior Manager at the Jodhpur Branch, in M-4 grade, w.e.f. 02.07.2018.

2.2 Terms and conditions of service were conveyed vide bank letter dated 22.05.2018 to respondent No.1.

Termination clause no. 19 contained therein states as under :

“Termination.

19. Your services can be terminated by the Bank, without any notice or payment of any kind in lieu of notice, in the following cases:

19.1 Any incorrect information furnished by you or on suppression of any material information; and/or

19.2 Any act, which in the opinion of the management is an act of dishonesty, disobedience, insubordination, incivility, intemperance, irregularity in attendance or other misconduct or neglect of duty or incompetence in the discharge of duty on your part or the breach on your part of any of the terms, conditions or stipulations contained in this letter or a violation on your part of any of the Bank’s rules and policies; and/or

19.3 You being adjudged an insolvent or applying to be adjudged an insolvent or making a composition or arrangement with your creditors or being held guilty by a competent court of any offence involving moral turpitude; and/or

19.4 You being convicted of a serious criminal offence or a criminal offence which, in the Bank’s opinion compromises your ability to perform your duties; and/or

19.5 The results of any background checks or searches conducted by the bank are found to be unsatisfactory in the opinion of the Bank in its absolute discretion; and/or

19.6 Any misconduct pertaining to moral turpitude, riotous/disorderly behaviour, theft, misappropriation, conviction by any court of law.

19.7 Any act or omission which could be construed as loss of confidence in you by the Management.

19.8 Any act subversive of discipline or any conduct prejudicial to the interest and reputation of the Bank.”

2.3 It is the petitioner-bank’s case that Respondent No.1 was working against the interests of the bank and was involved in fraudulent activities, including routing direct business through DSA and was receiving commissions. The bank formed this opinion based on a purported confession letter dated 01.12.2021 of one Ravindra Singh Parihar, an