Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
K. SAMPATH
V. Ramesh
Versus
The Zonal Manager UCO Bank, Thambu Chetty Street, Chennai & Another
W.P. No. 8690 of 1998 & W.M.P. Nos. 13197 & 13198 of 1998 & Con. Application No. 402 of 1998 & Sub. Application No. 165 of 1998
Decided On :Decided on: 22-12-1998
The court held that the petitioner was entitled to be reinstated with continuity of service and all attendant benefits. The court also held that the order of termination of the petitioner's services was invalid and quashed the same.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a probationary officer in a bank, was terminated from service on the ground that he had furnished false information regarding his community certificate. The petitioner challenged the termination order by filing a writ petition and also filed a contempt application alleging that the bank had violated the interim order passed by the court restraining it from terminating the petitioner's services.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner had not furnished false information regarding his community certificate and that the termination order was therefore invalid. The court also held that the bank had not violated the interim order passed by the court.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner had furnished false information regarding his community certificate? 2. Whether the termination order was valid? 3. Whether the bank had violated the interim order passed by the court?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the petitioner had not furnished false information regarding his community certificate. The court relied on the fact that the petitioner had produced a certificate issued by the Tahsildar, which was the competent authority at the time he joined the bank services. The court also relied on the fact that the bank had not produced any evidence to show that the certificate was false. 2. The court held that the termination order was invalid. The court held that the bank had not followed the procedure laid down in the relevant rules for terminating the petitioner's services. The court also held that the bank had not given the petitioner a reasonable opportunity to defend himself against the allegations made against him. 3. The court held that the bank had not violated the interim order passed by the court. The court held that the bank had taken legal advice and did not allow the writ petitioner to join duty as he stood relieved already.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and quashed the termination order. The court also dismissed the contempt application.
1. On 26.6.1998 while ordering notice of motion an interim order was passed to the following effect:
“Notice of motion returnable in four weeks. There will be an interim stay if the petitioner has not already been relieved”.
2. Alleging that he had not been relieved and that after expiry of the leave he had applied for, he reported for duty at 10.30 a.m. on 6.7.1998 at the Erode Branch of the respondent bank, that the second respondent refused to allow him to join duty, that he went over to Chennai on 8.7.1998 and met the first respondent and that after making him wait for two days, the first respondent told him that he had been relieved from 17.6.1998 itself, the applicant/writ petitioner has taken out the present Contempt Application.
3. Notice was ordered in the Contempt Application on 29.7.1998. The contemners appeared on 27.8.1998 further appearance was dispensed with, with a direction that if and when required they would have to appear before court.
4. A counter was filed. At the hearing of the Contempt Application Mr. G. Subramaniam, learned Senior Advocate representing Mr. D. Mukundan for the contemners/respondents in the writ petition referred to two decisions of the Supreme Court, viz.
(1) State of J & K v. Mohd. Yaqeeb Khan and others (1992 2 SCC 167) and
(2) Hari Nath Sharma v. Jaipur Development Authority (1995 4 SCC 252).
and submitted that the main writ petition and the Contempt Application could be heard together and disposed of, to which course the petitioners counsel also had no objection. Accordingly, arguments in both the writ petition and the contempt application were heard.
5. The prayer in the Writ Petition is as follows:
“For the reasons set out in the accompanying affidavit, it is prayed that mis Honble court may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ or order or direction in the nature of a writ calling for the records of the respondent pertaining to his proceedings-vide letter No. 26/31/SF/General, dated 17.6.1998 and quash the same in so far as the petitioner is concerned”
The order sought to be quashed is as follows:
(The entire letter is extracted).
“Ref: No. 26/31/SF/GENL. Date: 17.6.1998.
UCO Bank,
Zonal Office,
169, Thambu Chetty Street,
Chennai-600 001.
To
V. Ramesh, Assistant Manager,
UCO Bank, Mettu Road, Erode.
Sir,
Ref: Your service in our bank as an Officer not yet confirmed.
You were appointed as an officer - vide appointment letter dated 1.12.1989 under reserved category as S.T. Candidate. The Community in the Caste Certificate provided by you at the time of joining the bank service was proved that certificate was false. This was confirmed by order dated 23.1.1998 passed by the High Court, Madras, in W.P. No. 6007/93 filed by you.
The above amounts to violation of clause 10 of your appointment order. You are hereby discharged during Probation from the Bank Service with immediate effect. Enclosed managers cheque towards one month salary in lieu of one month notice.
Sd./(K.V. Ramachandran)
Zonal Manager.
6. The sheet anchor of the Banks case is the order in W.P. No. 6007/93 filed by the writ petitioner. It is necessary at this Juncture to refer to the case, the prayer and the order in the said writ petition. The writ petition was filed on the following allegations:
“The petitioner belonged to Kattu Naicken Community, which had been recognized as a Schedule Tribe as per G.O. Ms. No. 1564/SWD, dated 30.7.1985, Schedule Castes, Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act, 1976, vide serial No. 287. The petitioner was born and brought up at Karaikudi. His father was an Ex-Servicemen who had served in the Indian Air Force from 1960 to 1981. His parents migrated to Karaikudi several years back and ever since the petitioner had been living at Karaikudi with his parents. His forefathers were natives of Srivilliputhur though they did not have any property at Srivilliputhur nor did they have any relatives of the father residing there at the time of the filing of the writ petition. After gradua
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
