Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 282 (KAR)

K. SURENDRA PRABHU v. CANARA BANK

2002-04-17

R.GURURAJAN

body2002
R. GURURAJAN, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONER in this petition is seeking for following prayers. (A) Quash the promotions made by the respondent 1 by memo no. 47/98 dated 25. 6. 98 (under Annexures K to the Writ petition) and order bearing No. PWPM 9674 E 7 VR dated 31. 12. 99 (under Annexure Z to the Writ Petition) by issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari or appropriate writ, order or direction and further direct the respondent 1 to promote the petitioner to senior Management grade scale IV with effect from 25. 6. 98 and grant all consequential benefits including monetary benefits. (b) Issue such other appropriate writ, order or direction as this Hon ble Court deems fit to grant in the interest of justice and equity, including the award of costs of this Writ Petition. ( 2 ) PETITIONER joined the services of the Bank in the year 1959. He was promoted from time to time. Certain disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and an order was issued 1981. A petition was filed in this Court and the same came tobe dismissed. Thereafter, an appeal was filed and the appeal came to be allowed and thereby penalty was set aside by this Court. The respondent bank preferred an appeal and the same came to be dismissed in the year 1988. The Bank then moved the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court only extended the time for compliance with directions of division bench of this Court for a month from 20. 3. 98 while rejecting the petition filed by the bank. Bank did not implement the directions of this Court resulting in the petitioner filing a contempt petition in case no. 2365/97. In the said petition Sri T. R. Sridharan, the then chairman and managing director of the Bank and Sri M. V. Kamath, the then General Manager, personal wing of the bank were arrayed as respondents. On receipt of notice of contempt the petitioner was promoted w. e. f. 1. 1. 82. It is further stated that in so for as further promotion is concerned the same is to be considered by the departmental promotional committee and the petitioner is to await for the outcome from the said committee. The petitioner was directed to submit his self appraisals etc. , for the years 1988 to 1997 for the purpose of promotions to the bank. The petitioner was directed to submit his self appraisals etc. , for the years 1988 to 1997 for the purpose of promotions to the bank. Petitioner states that the chairman Mr. Sridharan and Mr. Kamath in their affidavits have stated that the petitioner was not entitled for consideration of his case of promotion to higher post as a consequence of an order in the Writ petition and judgments in SLP filed by the bank. . Petitioner s case for promotion was rejected without any reasons. Petitioner states that though he is entitled to be promoted right from 1988, he is restricting his claim to the promotional post for the year 1998. ( 3 ) PETITIONER has referred to various facts in the matter of promotion. Petitioner states that all his juniors i. e. respondents 2 to 51 were promoted ignoring the case of the petitioner. Petitioner has filed several annexures in support of his prayers. He has raised various grounds with regard to denial of his promotion. Petitioner in these circumstances is before this Court with the above referred prayers. ( 4 ) NOTICE was issued, pursuant to which the respondents have entered appearance. They have filed a detailed counter in support of the case. While denying various allegations made against the bank, they have stated that they have acted strictly in accordance with the rules of promotion. They have also referred to marks awarded for performance in the matter. The contesting respondents are represented by Counsel. ( 5 ) MATTER is heard for final disposal. ( 6 ) SRI Rajgopal, learned Counsel contends that the facts of the case would show that the petitioner is victimised by the respondents. He refers to various material facts in the matter, his self appraisal and performance for the purpose of promotion. ( 7 ) HE contends that the participation of Mr. Sridharan and Mr. Kamath has prejudiced his entire promotional procedure. He relies on a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1994 SC 961 and another judgment in 1982 (1) KLJ 321. ( 8 ) PER contra Sri Shankarnarayan, learned Counsel for the respondents contends that the material facts would show that the respondents are right in not considering the case of the petitioner. He relies on a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1994 SC 961 and another judgment in 1982 (1) KLJ 321. ( 8 ) PER contra Sri Shankarnarayan, learned Counsel for the respondents contends that the material facts would show that the respondents are right in not considering the case of the petitioner. In so for as promotion is concerned he would say that there were five other Deputy Managers who were entrusted with the task of providing the ranking list in the matter of promotion. He has placed the file for the perusal of the Court. He has referred to the original file to contend that the marks obtained by the petitioner is far below than the other respondent. Counsel also very strongly contends that the power of this Court is very limited in the matter of promotion. Counsel relies on various judgments to show to this Court the limited jurisdiction of the Court. He refers to 1999 SCC (L and S) 246, 1988 (2) LLN 885, 2000 LIC 95, 2000 LIC 428. He would further contend that the petitioner having participate in the promotion procedure cannot contend contra in these proceedings. ( 9 ) IN the light of the submission of the Counsel I have carefully analysed the material facts placed before the Court it is seen that the petitioner was subjected to certain disciplinary proceedings resulting in the petitioner moving this Court in Writ Petition No. 18759/ 84. Petition came to be dismissed. Petitioner thereafter filed an appeal in WA No. 2304/95. There he has made the Chairman and General Manager as party respondents in the appeal. Appellate Court in its order has set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and the appellate Court quashed the impugned order. Appellate Court has made it very clear that whatever the consequential benefits flowing from this order shall be given effect to by the respondents within a period of 3 months from today. However, the opportunity for holding a fresh enquiry is denied by this Court. It is also seen from the material on record that the bank thereafter moved the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has rejected the SLP with a direction to comply with the order of this Court for month from 20. 3. 98. However, the opportunity for holding a fresh enquiry is denied by this Court. It is also seen from the material on record that the bank thereafter moved the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has rejected the SLP with a direction to comply with the order of this Court for month from 20. 3. 98. In the absence of any compliance the petitioner filed a contempt petition in this Court and in which Sri sridharan and Mr. Kamath, General Manager, were made accused by the petitioner. It is clear from the affidavit filed in this Court that in the contempt petition they contended that the petitioner is not entitled for any promotion. Thereafter further proceedings have come to an end in the process and the petitioner was issued with a communication regarding his case for promotion being placed before the Departmental Promotional Committee for consideration. The departmental Promotion Committee has considered the case of the petitioner From the original record made available to me it is seen that the Chairman, Executive Director, and two other General managers members of the Departmental Promotional Committee. From the original file it is seen that the bank has chosen to provide eligibility mark for the purpose of the promotion. Bank has also chosen to appoint a committee of five Dy. General Managers for the purpose of providing the ranking list in terms of the Banking promotional policy. The committee as provide select list and as also intimation to provide marks. When the same was placed before the committee, both Mr. Sridharan and Mr. Kamath have participated in the meeting of Departmental Promotional Committee and rejected the case of the petitioner on the basis of the list submitted by DGMs. ( 10 ) IN the case on hand it is seen from the material fact the petitioner has objected for participation of Sri Sridharan and Sri Kamath in terms of an appeal regarding non promotion in the year 1998 itself. He has made a specific averment that these two officials have developed prejudice on account of contempt proceedings. Though an argument was placed that in the light of the petitioner s confining his promotion to 1998 the said representation and the other materials need not be gone into. It is true to the extent of pre 1998 promotion. He has made a specific averment that these two officials have developed prejudice on account of contempt proceedings. Though an argument was placed that in the light of the petitioner s confining his promotion to 1998 the said representation and the other materials need not be gone into. It is true to the extent of pre 1998 promotion. But what cannot be forgotten is that the petitioner did agitate with regard to participation of these two officials. It is seen from the original records as I mentioned earlier that these two officials have concurred with the list with regard to non promotion of the petitioner. In the light of the objection of the petitioner and in the light of the earlier affidavit filed in the contempt proceedings it cannot be said that there is no bias attributable to these two officials. As a matter of fact it is seen from the material on record that the petitioner s case for promotion was rejected in terms of an order dated 7. 9. 98 during the pendency of the contempt proceedings. It is also seen from the original record that the ranking list denying the promotion to the petitioner is accepted on 25. 6. 98 during the pendency of contempt proceedings. In the light of the factum of Sri sridharan and Sri Kamath being parties as accused in the contempt proceedings and in the light of the affidavit filed in the proceedings of contempt and further in the light of accepting non promotion of the petitioner on 25. 6. 98 it is clear that the theory of bias on the part of the petitioner cannot be lightly be rejected. ( 11 ) IN this connection it is very pertinent to refer to a decision of the Supreme Court somewhat in identical circumstances in the case of V. MAHADEVAN AND OTHERS vs. C. AGGARWAL1. In that case 1. AIR 1994 SC 961 also a contempt petition was filed by the petitioner and the committee consisted of the very officer against whom contempt was filed. Noticing this aspect of the matter the supreme Court in Para 3 held as under: Long arguments were advanced both on behalf of appellants and the respondent. Maintainability of the appeal was also challenged. AIR 1994 SC 961 also a contempt petition was filed by the petitioner and the committee consisted of the very officer against whom contempt was filed. Noticing this aspect of the matter the supreme Court in Para 3 held as under: Long arguments were advanced both on behalf of appellants and the respondent. Maintainability of the appeal was also challenged. We do not propose to enter into any of these aspects as we are of the opinion that in view of the statements made by the learned Addl. Solicitor General the continuance of contempt proceedings in the High Court would not be in interest of justice. Main grievance of the respondent that survives is for promotion. From the records produced by the learned Addl. Solicitor General we find that the committee which interviewed comprised of two of the persons against whom the respondent had filed contempt petition in the High Court. They are appellants in this Court. This in our opinion, was neither proper nor fair. Those officers who are occupying very high position in the bank in all propriety should have with drawn from the committee constituted for this purpose. We may not be understood as imputing any bias to them. But in our opinion the principle of fairness required that they should not have sat on the board. For these reasons we decide these appeals by issuing following directions: i. The statement of the learned Addl. Solicitor General is accepted that no fresh enquiry shall be held against the respondent for the act or commission for which action was taken against him which resulted in reduction from rank in 1987. Notice dated 28. 12. 92. shall stand withdrawn. ii. The State Bank of India shall reconsider the claim of promotion of the respondent to higher scale in accordance with rules. We do not express any opinion on the question if interview for higher scale is necessary and if there was any valid justification for not promoting the respondent whose record prior to these proceedings is unblemished but if under the policy framed by the bank and followed in other cases constitution of a committee and interview is necessary then the committee be constituted but the Managing director. SBI Central Office, Bombay and MD (per) SBI, Central Office, Bombay who are appellants in this Court may not be members. iii. SBI Central Office, Bombay and MD (per) SBI, Central Office, Bombay who are appellants in this Court may not be members. iii. The committee shall be constituted within three weeks from today which shall decide if respondent was entitled to be promoted to higher scale in which his juniors are working as we are informed that the respondent is reaching his age of superannuation. In case committee does not find the respondent suitable for promotion it shall give reasons for the same. iv. In view of these facts and circumstances the contempt proceedings in the High Court shall stand dropped. ( 12 ) IN the light of the categorical decision of the Supreme Court i am clearly of the view that the officers viz. Sri. Sridharan and kamath who were holding high position in the bank should have withdrawn from the committee as observed by the apex Court in the above case. Their participation in the committee certainly vitiated the procedure for promotion. In these circumstances the denial of promotion in terms of this committee in which these two officials were parties require my interference in this petition. ( 13 ) COUNSEL for the respondent further tried to justify that a list was prepared by DGMs and the same was approved by the departmental Promotional Committee. It may be so even then the bias cannot be ruled out on the peculiar fact of this case. Therefore, in these circumstances the argument of the bank with regard to justification cannot be accepted. ( 14 ) AT this stage I must notice that bank s Counsel has placed several decisions with regard to my jurisdiction with regard to promotion. I am fully conscious of the jurisdiction of this Court in the matter of promotion. I am not granting any promotion as such in this case. I am not referring to these judgments specifically since no relief of promotion is granted as such in the light of my earlier discussion of bias on the part of the bank. Having come to this conclusion of bias, what requires to be done by the bank is noticed in AIR 1994 SC 961 . Following the said judgment, I deem it proper direct the bank to reconsider the claim of promotion of the petitioner in accordance with law. Having come to this conclusion of bias, what requires to be done by the bank is noticed in AIR 1994 SC 961 . Following the said judgment, I deem it proper direct the bank to reconsider the claim of promotion of the petitioner in accordance with law. While reconsidering the same, the bank has to take necessary steps to constitute a committee excluding Sri sridharan and Sri Kamath who were parties in the contempt proceedings. The committee may be constituted in terms of this order and it is to complete the process of reconsidering of promotion within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is also to be mentioned here that since the petitioner has confined his claim of promotion from 1998, the reconsidering is also restricted to claim of promotion for the year 1998 only. The other promotees of the respondent are not disturbed for the present. ( 15 ) IN the result the petition is partly allowed. The order at annexure Z is set aside. A direction is issued to the bank to reconsider the case of the petitioner in accordance with the directions in the course of this order and with a further direction to complete the process within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. All the other contentions not considered by me are left open. --- *** --- .