Back
1996 Supreme(All) 516
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Palok Basu, I.M.Quddusi
VISHNU PRABHAKAR MISHRA
Versus
STATE OF U P
Decided On : 26 April 1996
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 11549 of 1991
V.M.SAHAI, V.S.SAXENA, Vishnu Prabhakar Misra,
A provision allowing for the termination of an officer's or employee's service by notice without any inquiry or opportunity to defend is arbitrary, unguided, and violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 16, 21, and 300-A of the Constitution of India.
Headnote:
CHHATRASSAL GRAMMIN BANK STAFF SERVICE REGULATIONS - Regulation 10(2)(a) - Termination of service of an officer or employee by notice - Held to be unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14, 16, 21, and 300-A of the Constitution of India.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, a Field Supervisor in Chhatrasal Gramin Bank, challenged the termination of his service under Regulation 10(2)(a) of the Chhatrasal Gramin Bank Staff Service Regulations, 1983, alleging that the provision was unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14, 16, 21, and 300-A of the Constitution of India.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that Regulation 10(2)(a) of the Service Regulations, which allowed for the termination of an officer's or employee's service by notice without any inquiry or opportunity to defend, was arbitrary, unguided, and violative of the petitioner's fundamental rights under Articles 14, 16, 21, and 300-A of the Constitution of India.
Issues: 1. Whether Regulation 10(2)(a) of the Chhatrasal Gramin Bank Staff Service Regulations, 1983, is unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14, 16, 21, and 300-A of the Constitution of India? 2. Whether the petitioner's termination of service under Regulation 10(2)(a) was valid and justified?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court relied on several Supreme Court precedents, including M.K.A. Agarwal v. Gurgaon Gramin Bank, West Bengal State Electricity Board v. D.B. Ghosh, Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. v. Brojo Nath, and O.P. Bhandari v. Indian Tourism Development Corporation Ltd., which held that similar provisions allowing for arbitrary termination of employment without an inquiry or opportunity to defend were unconstitutional and violative of fundamental rights. 2. The Court held that Regulation 10(2)(a) was arbitrary and unguided, as it conferred on the bank an unfettered power to terminate the services of an officer or employee without any objective criteria or standards. 3. The Court further held that the termination of the petitioner's service under Regulation 10(2)(a) was not justified, as the petitioner had completed the maximum period of probation prescribed under the Service Regulations and had not been confirmed or discharged from service.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the order of termination of the petitioner's service, and directed the petitioner's reinstatement with full consequential benefits of service, including arrears of salary and due increments.
By means of the present writ petition the peti tioner has inter alia, challenged the order of termination from service passed by the Chairman, Chhatrasal Gramin Bank, Orai district Jalaun under Regulation 10 (2) (a) of Chhatrasal Gramin Bank Staff Service Regulations, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as the "service Regulations)" and also for a writ of mandamus to declare the provisions of Regulation 10 of the Service Regulations as null and void.
2. We have heard the petitioner Vishnu Prabhakar Misra in person and Sri V. M. Sahai for respondent Nos. 2 to 5.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Field Supervisor in the Chhatrasal Gramin Bank by its Chairman vide order dated 16-4-1985 on probation for a period of two years. It was one of the conditions indicated in the order of appointment of the petitioner that his appointment will be governed by the rules to be framed under Chhatrasal Gramin Back Staff Service Regulations and also the rules prescribed under R. R. B. Act. In pursuance of his appointment he joined on 6-5-1995.
4. During the course of employment some complaints were received against the petitioner with regard to bungling and mis-appropriation of funds and embezzlement as a result of which a preliminary enquiry was got conducted and the enquiry officer submitted his report. On the basis of that report a high power committee consisting of General Manager, Manager (Finance) and Manager Vigilence of the bank was constituted which recom mended the termination of the petitioners service under Regulation No. 10 (2) (ii) of the Service Regulation, inter alia, holding that the petitioner caused loss to the bank to the extent of Rs. 35,000 and mis-appropriated the amount of fund and his previous conduct was also not good. The Chairman of the bank passed order of termination of the petitioners services under Regulation 10 (2) (i) of the Service Regulations by tendering emolument in lieu of three months notice.
5. The petitioner preferred an appeal under Regulation 31 fi) against the, impugned order of termination which was rejected by the Board of Directors on 31-12-1990. The decision of the Board was communicated to the petitioner by the Chairman vide letter dated 6-3-1991.
6. An objection was raised through the counter-affidavit to the effect that the respondent bank is not a state within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution but during the course of argument Sri Sahai fairly con ceded that the respondent bank is an instrumentality and thug is a state within the meaning of Article 12 and the writ petition against it is main tainable.
7. The contention of the petitioner is that since he had completed maximum period of probation prescribed under the Service Regulations he became confirmed employee, the provisions of Regulation 10 of the Service Regulations according to which the services of any officer or employee could be terminated by means of an innocuous order by giving three months notice or salary in lieu thereof in case of an officer and one months notice or salary in lieu thereof in case of an employee is bad un- constitutional and is violative of Articles 14, 16, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and the same is liable to be struck down. The last contention of the peti tioner is that his services could not have been terminated on the basis of the charges without conducting a fair and impartial enquiry and affording him adequate opportunity to defend. ^
8. Sri Sahai submitted that since there was no confirmation order of the petitioner, he was a temporary officer and his services could be terminat ed by giving him three months notice or salary in lieu thereof. In the absence of any confirmation order there could not be any automatic con firmation of the petitioner. Since no punishment has been imposed against the petitioner he has not been penalised, a simplicitor order terminating his services could have been passed which casts no stigma against him a
