SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

1991 Supreme(Mad) 814

High Court of Judicature at Madras
RAJU
T.D. Digambar
Versus
Central Bank of India represented by Chairman, Bombay & Another
W.P.No. 6856 of 1982
Decided On : 31-10-1991

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:A.L. Somayaji for M/s. Aiyar & Dolia & Annamathew, Advocates.
For the Respondent:M.R. Narayanaswami, Senior Counsel, for K.R. Vijayakumar, Advocate.

Sustainability of the order of eviction of person from the premises of Coimbatore City Municipal Coporation.

Headnote:Service Law - Suspension of payment of bank employee-Insolvency petition by bank employee-Termination of services of employee of account of loss of confidence-Held, ordre of termination vitiated due to non-compliance of the provisions of paragraph 521 of Bipartite settlement.

       

Judgment :-

1. The above writ petition has been filed for a writ of certiorari to call for and quash the proceedings of the second respondent in RO:PRS.AD:82/116, dated 8.7.1982, the memo by which the petitioner was informed that his services were terminated with effect from 17.7.1982 that the termination did not amount to retrenchment, and that notwithstanding the same, the petitioner was being given retrenchment compensation which he would have drawn if the termination had amounted to retrenchment and that a pay order for Rs.3,982.17 being the three months pay and allowances was being also attached.

2. The petitioner was appointed as Shroff-cum-Collection Clerk in the services of the respondent-bank on 17.11.1968. On 4.11.1979, the petitioner sought permission from the first respondent for filing an insolvency petition as he had incurred debts of Rs.20,000 at high rate of interest. On 15.4.1980, the petitioner appears to have been suspended on the basis of the above letter while he was working as clerk and he was allowed to draw an amount equal to 1/3 of his salary and all other subsistence allowances as per the orders of the Divisional Manager, Coimbatore Division. Subsequently, on 30.8.1980 having regard to the entitlement of the petitioner, he was ordered to be paid half salary and allowances and subsistence allowances. The petitioner has been issued with a charge memo on 13.1.1981 which included the charge of issuing cheques H.S.S. withdrawals on his account without keeping sufficient funds. By his communication dated 4.11.1979 to the Divisional Manager, the petitioner confessed that he contracted loans approximately of Rs.20,000 and was paying exorbitant interest and seeking permission as referred to above to file an insolvency petition. The petitioner did actually file an insolvency petition on 8.11.1979. The charge memo also contained charge of violation of Sec.10(1)(b)(iii) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 and the petitioner was alleged to have committed misconduct involving moral turpitude. I.P.No.54 of 1979 filed by the petitioner, in the court of the Subordinate Judge of Tiruchirapalli was said to have been withdrawn on 28.7.1980 and it is, therefore, claimed that the petitioner, was not adjudged as an insolvent.

3.The management appears to have conducted an enquiry on 23.2.1981 and on the basis of the findings of the Inquiry Officer, a show cause memo dated 26.8.1981 was issued by the Disciplinary Authority (Chief Manager, Coimbatore) holding charges 1 and 2 proved and proposing to impose a consolidated punishment of stoppage of increment for three years permanently. The petitioner appears to have submitted a written submission on 1.9.1981 accepting guilt and also made oral submission on 4.9.1981 and on 4.9.1981 itself. The punishment proposed by the Disciplinary Authority was said to have been imposed. On 8.9.1981, the Chief Manager revoked the suspension order and reinstated the petitioner in service from the date he would report for duty at Pattivatithalai Branch. The petitioner appears to have joined on 11.9.1981 and had been served with the impugned proceedings. Aggrieved, the above writ petition has been filed.

4. Mr.A.L.Somayaji, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended as follows: (a) The impugned order is in substance one of punishment for a misconduct and consequently, the same was passed without complying with the procedure contemplated under paragraph 521 of the Sastry Award and subsequently made the subject of Bi-partite Settlement, (b) The provisions contained in paragraph 522 of the Sastry Award which has before part of the Bipartite Settlement is violative of Art.14 of the Constitution of India and is liable to be struck down and consequently, the order, purported to have been passed thereunder also stood vitiated (c) The provisions contained in Para.522 of the Bi-partite settlement has no application to the case on hand since the question of loss of confidence involves a misconduct and con













Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top