Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1372 (JHR)

Jhabeshwar Prasad Singh v. United Bank of India

2015-10-30

PRAMATH PATNAIK

body2015
JUDGMENT : Per Pramath Patnaik, J. In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing of termination letter dated 09.02.2010 issued by the Manager, United Bank of India, Ojhadih Branch, Dhanbad and also for quashing of order dated 5.10.2010 issued by the appellate authority-Executive Director of the respondents-Bank and further for reinstatement of the petitioner in services. 2. The facts, as emanated from the averments of the writ application, in a nutshell is that on 11.08.1994 a letter was issued to the petitioner appointing him as a part time sweeper at Ojhadih Branch with effect from 01.05.1987. Thereafter, the petitioner continued to discharge his duties to the best satisfaction of the authorities. But, all on a sudden on 9.02.2010, the Manager, Ojhadih Branch of the said Bank informed the petitioner that his services has been terminated vide order dated 03.02.2010 by Chief Regional Manager, Regional Office, Ranchi. Upon such information, the petitioner submitted his representation to the higher authorities of the said bank seeking reason of his dismissal from services. It has been submitted that upon receipt of such representation, the Manager, Ojhadih Branch wrote a letter to the Chief Regional Manager, Jharkhand for consideration of the representation of the petitioner. But, when no action was taken by the respondents-authorities, the petitioner filed an application under R.T.I Act seeking reasons of his dismissal. Thereupon, the Regional Public Information Officer-cum-Chief Regional Manager, Jharkhand furnished the information sought for by the petitioner stating that during the C.B.I enquiry, it has come to notice that the petitioner has taken money from the United Kisan Credit borrower (herein after referred to as 'UKC borrower'). Thereafter, the petitioner preferred appeal, which was dismissed vide order dated 05.10.2010. 3. Being aggrieved by the impugned order of termination issued vide letter dated 09.02.2010 and appellate order dated 05.10.2010, the petitioner approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievances. 4. Per contra, counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents controverting the averments made in the writ application. 3. Being aggrieved by the impugned order of termination issued vide letter dated 09.02.2010 and appellate order dated 05.10.2010, the petitioner approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievances. 4. Per contra, counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents controverting the averments made in the writ application. It has been submitted in the counter affidavit that petitioner was appointed as part time sweeper in respondent bank and in the letter dated 11.08.1994 itself, it has categorically been stated that services of the petitioner is temporary in nature and the petitioner may be terminated from services at any time with or without notice or without assigning any reason whatsoever. It has further been submitted that though the petitioner was working as a sweeper but on raid of C.B.I, they laid specific charges on him for taking money from UKC borrower and hence, vide letter dated 09.02.2010, the petitioner was informed by the respondent-bank about his termination from the services. As such, the respondent-bank was not in a position to continue the petitioner in services, which was entirely on temporary basis. 5. Heard Mr. Amitabh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Anup Kumar Jha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-bank. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously urged that the impugned order of termination dated 09.02.2010 has been passed without notice and without affording any opportunity of being heard, which is in utter violation of principles of natural justice. Learned counsel further submitted that the termination order dated 09.02.2010, which has been issued by Manager of the said bank is not competent authority to terminate the services of the petitioner, hence, the impugned order of termination is bad in law. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the impugned order of termination from services being stigmatic order violates Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. 7. In support of his argument, on the issue of violation of principles of natural justice, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments rendered in the case of (i) Smt. Normi Topno Vs. State of Jharkahnd & Ors. as reported in 2008 (1) JCR 381 (Jhr) [FB] (ii) State Bank of India & Ors. Vs. Palak Modi & Another as reported in (2013) 3 SCC 607 (iii) Amar Kumar Vs. State of Jharkahnd & Ors. as reported in 2008 (1) JCR 381 (Jhr) [FB] (ii) State Bank of India & Ors. Vs. Palak Modi & Another as reported in (2013) 3 SCC 607 (iii) Amar Kumar Vs. State of Bihar & Ors as reported in 2013 (4) JLJR 136 (SC). 8. Countering the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that as per the terms and conditions of the appointment letter itself, services of the petitioner has been dispensed with because of C.B.I raid, in which, the petitioner stood charged for taking money from UKC borrower. Moreover, the petitioner being a part time sweeper, regular departmental proceeding was not envisaged in the Banking Rules for dispensing with the services of the petitioner as a part time employee. Therefore, the action of the respondents in terminating the services of the petitioner even without notice is fully justified. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and on perusal of the documents on record, it appears that the petitioner has not been able to make out a case for interference in the impugned order dated 09.02.2010 (Annexure 1) and 05.10.2010 (Annexure 2), for the following facts, reasons and judicial pronouncement: (i) On perusal of Annexure 3, it clearly reveals that the petitioner was appointed as part time sweeper and in Clause (i) it has clearly been mentioned that nature of appointment of the petitioner shall be of temporary and shall be liable for earlier termination at any time with or without notice or without assigning any reason whatsoever. However, for satisfactory service and conduct, the petitioner may be retained in service after the expiry of the said period. While continuing as part time sweeper, a raid was conducted by C.B.I in which, the petitioner was found guilty of taking money from UKC borrower, which amounts to serious misconduct as per the terms and conditions of the appointment order, as the petitioner was not congenial to the bank. Therefore, the services of the petitioner was terminated as it was not in the interest of the bank to retain the petitioner in services due to such serious misconduct. Therefore, the services of the petitioner was terminated as it was not in the interest of the bank to retain the petitioner in services due to such serious misconduct. (ii) So far as the decisions cited by learned counsel for the petitioner relating to violation of principles of natural justice is concerned, the same is not applicable in the case of the petitioner, as the case of the petitioner is distinctly different, hence, they are not applicable and said decisions are of no assistance to the petitioner. (iii) Learned counsel for the petitioner further relied upon Annexure 5, which is a recommendation letter written by Manager of the said bank to the Chief Regional Manager annexing therewith the representation of the petitioner for consideration of his case sympathetically. Relevant portion of which is quoted herein below :- “xxx xxx xxx Please find his representation asking for reason of dismissal from service and petitionering for reinstatement in service. He has worked since 1987 and was very much co-operative, well behaved and instrumental in recovery of loans and advances. We hope sympathetic consideration of his case.” (emphasis supplied) This Court fails to understand as to how a part time sweeper was entrusted with the work of recovery of loans and advances, and if so, such action of the respondents-bank cannot be countenanced with under any circumstances. 10. On cumulative effects of the aforesaid facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements and in view of the discussions made in foregoing paragraphs, the termination letter dated 09.02.2010 issued by the Manager, United Bank of India, Ojhadih Branch, Dhanbad and order dated 5.10.2010 issued by the appellate authority-Executive Director of the respondents-Bank do not warrant any interference by this Court. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed, being devoid of any merit.