Para 522 (1) of the Sastry Award, which allows termination of service of permanent employees by giving three months' notice or salary in lieu thereof, is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 17. 1. 1983 passed by the Divisional manager (Staff and Industrial Relation) Bank of Maharashtra. respondent No. 1 whereby the services of the petitioner have been terminated.

( 2 ) THE Bank of Maharashtra is a Public Sector Undertaking being one of the nationalised scheduled Bank under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act (Act XXII of 1969 ). The petitioner was appointed as Sub-Staff in the Bank of Maharashtra, meerut Branch, Meerut on 27. 9. 1979. He was confirmed and made permanent on the expiry of the period of probation of six months from the date of his appointment.

( 3 ) THE version of the petitioner is that there were complaints against the Branch Manager, respondent No. 2 regarding advancing of loan and one complaint was made by Liberty Dry cleaners of Meerut regarding non-payment of charges of washing of clothes by respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 suspected that in such complaint, the petitioner had a hand. He was called by respondent No. 2 and was seriously scolded. Later on, the petitioner received order dated january 17, 1983 whereby his services were terminated by respondent No. 2 under para 522 (1)of the Sastry Award which reads as under :

"in cases not Involving disciplinary action for misconduct and subject to clause (6) below, the employment of a permanent employee may be terminated by 3 months notice or on payment of 3 months pay and allowances in lieu of notice. The services of the probationer may be terminated by one months notice or on payment of one months pay and allowances in lieu of notice. "

( 4 ) DR. R. G. Padia, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that sub-para (1) of para 522 of the Sastry Award is unreasonable and hit by Article 14 of the Constitution as the services of permanent employee can be terminated. under this para without any Justification. He has relied upon various decisions in support of his contention.

( 5 ) IN Moti Ram Deka v. North East Frontier Railway, AIR 1964 SC 600, Rules 148 (3) and 149 (3) of Railway Station Establishment Code provided that the services of permanent employees can be terminated by giving them notice for the specified period or paying them salary for the said period in lieu of notice. The Supreme Court held that the said Rule was vlolatlve of Article 311 (2) and further of Article 14 of the Constitution as it leaves ungulded discretion on the railway Administration to terminate the services of the employees.

( 6 ) IN West Bengal Electricity Board and others v. Desh Bandhu Ghosh, AIR 1985 SC 722, the board was conferred the power under Regulation 34 of West Bengal Electricity Boards regulation enabling the Board to terminate the services of permanent employee by giving three months notice or salary in lieu thereof. The Court struck down the first paragraph of Regulations 34 as it offended Article 14 of the Constitution. The Regulation was found to be totally arbitrary conferring power on the Board which was capable of vicious discrimination. It was treated as a naked hire and fire Rule.

( 7 ) IN Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. and another v. Brajo Nath Ganguli and another, AIR 1986 SC 1571, the validity of Rule 9 (i) of the Central Inland Water Transport corporation Ltd. Service Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1979 was considered which provided that the services of permanent employee can be terminated on giving three months notice or salary in lieu thereof. Rule 36 provided for different penalties which could be Imposed on an employee for his misconduct. Rule 38 provided the procedure for Imposing the major penalty and set out in detail as to how the disciplinary enquiry is to be held. The Supreme Court held that such power is arbitrary and there is no guideline which enabled the corporation to discriminate between one employee and another employee. It can pick up an employee and apply to him clause (i) of Rule 9 and it can pick u