Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
D. K. Seth, J.
S.L.BATHLA - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF BANK OF INDIA - Respondents
Civil Misc. Writ Petition 10012 Of 1991
Decided On : 12/08/1998
BANK EMPLOYEE - ELECTION TO MUNICIPAL BOARD - PERMISSION GRANTED IN 1981 - ELECTION NOT HELD - SUBSEQUENT AMENDMENT IN RULES REQUIRING RESIGNATION UPON ELECTION - EMPLOYEE CONTESTED ELECTION IN 1989 WITHOUT PERMISSION - BANK TERMINATED HIS SERVICE - COURT HELD TERMINATION VALID AS EMPLOYEE VIOLATED CONDITION OF PERMISSION AND AMENDED RULES.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a bank employee, was granted permission in 1981 to contest an election to the Municipal Board. However, the election was not held. In 1987, the bank's rules were amended to require employees to resign if they were elected to a municipal board or other public body. The petitioner contested the election in 1989 without obtaining permission from the bank. The bank terminated his service for violating the condition of permission and the amended rules.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the bank was justified in terminating the petitioner's service. The court found that the petitioner had violated the condition of permission granted in 1981, which required him to relinquish his office if the bank considered that his continuance in office would interfere with his work. The court also found that the petitioner had violated the amended rules, which required him to resign if he was elected to a municipal board or other public body.
Issues: 1. Whether the bank was justified in terminating the petitioner's service for violating the condition of permission granted in 1981? 2. Whether the bank was justified in terminating the petitioner's service for violating the amended rules?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the bank was justified in terminating the petitioner's service for violating the condition of permission granted in 1981. The court found that the petitioner had undertaken to comply with the condition, which required him to relinquish his office if the bank considered that his continuance in office would interfere with his work. The court also found that the bank had considered that the petitioner's continuance in office would interfere with his work and had communicated this to him. 2. The court held that the bank was justified in terminating the petitioner's service for violating the amended rules. The court found that the petitioner was bound by the amended rules, which required him to resign if he was elected to a municipal board or other public body. The court also found that the petitioner had failed to resign after being elected to the Municipal Board.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitioner's writ petition challenging the termination of his service.
( 1 ) ON 9th of September, 1981 the petitioner had applied for permission to contest the election to the Municipal Board, Saharanpur scheduled to be held in December, 1981. The permission was granted on 23rd September, 1981 with a stipulation in Clause 3 of the said permission contained in Annexure 2 that it would be open to the Bank to call upon him to cease to continue in the office of the Municipal Board if the Bank considers that his continued service in such office would interfere with his work in the bank and if he refused to relinquish his service as member of the Municipal Board when called upon to do so by the Bank, it would be open to the Bank to take disciplinary action against him and even terminate his service. But the said election for which permission was sought by the application contained in Annexure 1, did not take place. On 15th December, 1988, the petitioner informed the Bank that he would be contesting the election scheduled to be held in 1989 (Annexure 3 ). The petitioner participated in the election on 10th january, 1989. The result whereof declared on 11th January, 1989 declaring the petitioner to be elected. By a communication dated 20th March, 1989, the petitioner was informed that there had been amendment in the rules and pursuant to such amended rules, explanation was called from him. The petitioner had sent his explanation on 4th of April, 1989 pleading ignorance of the amendment in the rules. On 19th April, 1989, the Bank had issued a notice to show cause together with a Circular dated 28th of January, 1987 containing the relevant extract of the amended rules being annexed as Annexures 7 and 8 to the writ petition. The petitioner submitted his reply on 10th May, 1989. Having considered the reply, the Bank had required the petitioner to resign from the post of Councillor of the Municipal Board within 3 days through the communication dated 25th September, 1989 informing him that in default, he would be liable to be proceeded against through a disciplinary action including termination of service. This order was challenged through writ petition No. 2840 of 1989 before the Delhi High Court, which was pleased to dismiss the writ petition by a judgment and order dated. 1. 8th July, 1990 (Annexure 11 ). The petitioner thereupon moved the Apex Court through a Special Leave Petition being s. L. ?. (Civil) No. 10113 of 1990, which was dismissed by an order dated 5th April, 1991 (Annexure 14 ). Thereafter by or under a communication dated -13th May, 1991, the petitioner was given notice with the proposal to terminate his service asking him to show cause within 7 days being Annexure 15. T\he petitioner submitted his reply on 21st May, 1991, which is annexure 16 to the writ petition. By an order dated 31st May, 1991, the petitioners service was terminated with immediate effect offering the petitioner notice pay of three months in lieu of notice. This order contained in Annexure 17, has since been challenged in this writ petition.
( 2 ) MR. K. P. Agarwal appearing with Ms. Suman Sirohi, learned Counsel for the petitioner had contended that the order of termination is in effect a punishment purported to have been punished through disciplinary proceedings and as such Regulations 521 and 522 of the Shastri award are very much attracted making it mandatory that such order could be passed only after holding disciplinary proceedings as contemplated in Regulation 522 of the said Award. In the present case, according to him no disciplinary proceedings at all have been held, which is an admitted position. Therefore, the order of termination is void ab initio. Secondly, he contends that the ground on which the disciplinary proceedings were taken, was completely non-est since the petitioner had obtained permission to contest the election by means of the order dated 23rd september, 1981 through which he was permitted to contest the election and that no disciplinary proceedings could be taken against him pursu
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
