S.K. MAL LODHA, J.—By this appeal, under section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949, the appellants State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, Head Officer Tilak Marg, Jaipur (for short the Bank herein) and others, question the correctness of the order dated October 19, 1985 of the learned Single Judge of this Court, by which the writ petition filed by the petitioner-respondent was allowed and the order terminating his services (Anx. 1) dated April 23, 1983 was quashed. \

2. The petitioner-respondent was employed as a clerk in the Bank from January 11, 1972. He was a permanent employee of the Bank. He worked in Central Accounts Department at Bikaner from January 11, 1972 to February 14, 1982 and, thereafter, at the Jasusar Branch till the order of termination was issued. It appears that a preliminary enquiry was held against the petitioner-respondent and a report was submitted by Shri B.C. Chhabra. The extracts from that report have been submitted by the Bank as Ex.R.3. The material portion of the report may be quoted as under:-

"In conclusion I have to state that Shri J.C. Khadgawat is a person with a tendency to out turn the normal channels for redressal of his grievance and can go to the extent of making false and frivolous complaints. The whole evidence of Shri Khadgawat reveals, particularly the letter addressed to Shri Samirdas and marked Ex. 1 that to cut with the position of the recognised union of the Bank employees he could resort to malign the senior officers of the Bank and for a sake the secrecy bond so vital in a credit institution that his CONTINUOUS INDULGENCE TO EXTRA constitutional activities is a great hazard to build up the image of the institution in public eye."

After the submission of the report, the order of termination of services (Anx. 1) dated April 23, 1983 was passed, which may be reproduced hereinbelow:-

"We have to advise that as you have forfeited the trust and confidence of the Bank, your services are hereby terminated with immediate effect. In terms of paragraph 522 of the Shastri Award, we are paying you 3 months pay and allowances being Rs. 4980. 15 p. in lieu of notice. Though your termination cannot be deemed to be "retrenchment" within the meaning of section 2(00) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, yet with a view to avoiding any legal complications, you are hereby being paid one months wages being Rs. 1660.05 P in lieu of one months notice in terms of section 25 f (a) of the Act ibid and a sum of Rs. 9130.30 P being retrenchment compensation as required in terms of section 25 F (b) of the Act ibid. Three cheques for the aforesaid amounts are enclosed.

Please note that the amounts outstanding against you towards loans availed by you from the Bank will be adjusted out of the permissible amount of your Provident Fund and Gratuity payable to you."

3. The petitioner-respondent filed the writ petition on May 4, 1983 praying that an appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing the order Anx. 1 may be issued allowing him all consequential benefits, such as salary etc, The order Anx, 1 dated April 23, 1983 was challenged on the ground that para 522 of the Shastri Award, in which this order has been passed, is invalid and further that it has been passed on the ground of malides and that it is arbitrary and in violation of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The writ petition was opposed by the Bank, by filing a reply dated May 8, 1983. While controverting the grounds raised by the petitioner-respondent for quashing the order of termination, an objection was raised that the writ petition was not maintainable for enforcement of para 522 of the Shastri Award. It was submitted that the petitioner-respondent had no cause of action and even if he has, it was a matter to be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, ("the Act") for, the matter relating to the termination of services is an Industrial dispute. It was also submitted that instead of taking discipli

Click Here to Read the rest of this document