*THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO
W.P.No.2349 of 2001
% 22-04-2014 Between:
# K.S. Prasad And …Petitioner Board of Directors / Executive Committee, State Bank of Hyderabad, Head Office, Gunfoundry, Hyderabad, rep by its Managing Director and other …Respondents ! COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER: Mr.K. Srinivasa Varada Chary ^ COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS: Mr.Addepalli Suryanarayana < Gist:
> Head Note:
? CITATIONS:
AIR 1996 SC 1669 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO W.P.No.2349 of 2001
O R D E R:
The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus for declaring the parallel disciplinary proceedings initiated by respondents 1 and 2 in the matter of issuing suspension orders, dated 02-05-1994 and 20-08-1994, as bad and unsustainable and further to declare that respondents 4 and 5 are not competent authorities to be the appellate authority and the disciplinary authority respectively in case of the petitioner, who belongs to Senior Management Grade, Scale-V under the State Bank of Hyderabad (Officers) Service Regulations, 1979 and as such to set aside the appellate order dated 20-08-1994 and the order dated 08-11-1999 of the disciplinary authority imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement on the petitioner.
The case of the petitioner is that he joined the service of the State Bank of Hyderabad as a Clerk to begin with on 29-02-1964, eventually, got promoted, from one rank after another, as Officer of Senior Management Grade-V / Assistant General Manager, on 12-07-1991. The petitioner was deputed to function as an Assistant General Manager with the State Bank of Indore on 01-12-1991. He was posted as Assistant General Manager, Fort Mumbai Branch of State Bank of Indore, where he assumed charge on 04-12-1991. It is the case of the petitioner that the Fort Mumbai Branch was a very large branch under the administrative control of the Deputy General Manager, functioning from the Zonal Office of the Bank. It is also his case that the Merchant Banking Division of the Bank also functions from a distinct and separate premises and it is not a part of the Fort Mumbai Branch. It is also the case of the petitioner that each division of the Bank is headed by a Manager concerned and he is accountable and responsible for all that takes place there.
It is the case of the petitioner that two Companies, namely, M/s. Eastern Mining Limited and M/s. Surya Agroils Limited have offered rights- cum-public issue during March, 1993. The Merchant Banking Division of State Bank of Indore acted as a Lead Manager to these public issues. Whatever applications have been received by the Fort Mumbai Branch of the Bank, together with money / cheque / stock investment instrument, are all forwarded to the Registrar of the Public Issue concerned. The necessary statutory returns are filed before the Securities and Exchange Board of India (for short ‘SEBI’). However, it appears that serious fraud and irregularities have been committed by the two Companies and they have also successfully duped investors by resorting to falsification of records and registers. It appears that the State Bank of Tranvancore, one other subsidiary of the State Bank of India, has approved a Bridge Loan of Rs.10- 00 crore to one of the Companies, i.e., M/s. Surya Agroils Limited, and the said transaction has become sticky. It is also the case of the petitioner that because of the inaccurate and irregular statutory compliance reports submitted to the SEBI in respect of the aforementioned two public issues, the SEBI has once again permitted M/s. Eastern Mining Limited to come up with a second rights-cum-public issue in September / October, 1994. It is the specific case of the petitioner that to cover up the role of various top executives of State Bank of Indore involved in respect and in relation to the public issues floated by those two Companies, the petitioner has been made a scapegoat so that the attention of investigators can be taken away from them. It appears that the Executive Committee of the State Bank of Indore, the 2nd respondent herein, has taken a decision to place the writ petitioner under suspension on 29-04-1994, while the order placing him under suspension has been served on him on 03-05-1994. It is the case of the petitioner that he was not a regular employee of the State Bank of Indore and hence, he could not have been placed under suspension by the said Bank. Further, realizing the folly committed by the State Bank of Indore, the State Bank of Hyderabad passed orders placing him under suspension through their Proceedings dated 12-08- 1994. According to the petitioner even these Proceedings of the State Bank of Hyderabad placing him under suspension are illegal, inasmuch as he has not been repatriated by the State Bank of Indore by then. Ultimately, the 5th respondent, the Chief General Manager, acting as the Disciplinary Authority has passed Final Orders on 08-11-1999 imposing on him the punishment of compulsory retirement from service. When appealed against, the 4th respondent Managing Director of the State Bank of Hyderabad, has mechanically rejected his Appeal on 26- 08-2000. In the above backdrop, the present writ petition came to be instituted.
Heard Sri K. Srinivasa Varada Chary, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Addepalli Suryanarayana, learned Standing Counsel for the State Bank of Hyderabad, on behalf of the respondents.
The case of the petitioner is that the very initiation of the disciplinary proceedings by the 2nd respondent State Bank of Indore by placing him under suspension on 03-05-1994 is illegal. According to the petitioner, he is only functioning on deputation basis with the State Bank of Indore and hence, is not amenable to disciplinary control of the State Bank of Indore. It is his case, therefore, that the very initiation of the disciplinary proceedings against him by the State Bank of Indore is a grossly illegal act.
The above contention is without any merit or substance. Placing an employee under suspension does not amount to initiation of disciplinary proceedings at all. The disciplinary proceedings get initiated when a charge- sheet is drawn and served on the employee putting him on his defence. (See: Union of India v. K.V.Janakiraman (AIR 1991 SC 2010); UCO Bank v. Rajender Lal Capoor (2007 (6) SCC 694) Suspension pending enquiry is normally resorted to by the employer for securing the integrity of the record by preventing any further access thereto to the delinquent employee. Otherwise, a delinquent employee may possibly cause disappearance or distortion to the record. Further, depending upon the gravity of the delinquency, by placing such an employee under suspension, the prospects of recurrence of delinquency can be preempted. Therefore, an order of suspension pending enquiry is never treated as an inseparable or integral part of the disciplinary proceedings. There are many instances where the delinquency was not very grave, but however, warrant initiation of disciplinary proceedings the employer may not even place such an employee under suspension, but however, carry on with the disciplinary proceedings. Therefore, the plea raised by the petitioner in this regard is clearly untenable.
The petitioner also made an issue out of the orders passed by the State Bank of Hyderabad later on placing him under suspension. The Executive Committee of the State Bank of Hyderabad appears to have taken a decision on 12-08-1994 placing the petitioner under suspension. According to the petitioner, the said order was not directly communicated by the State Bank of Hyderabad to him, nor did the State Bank of Hyderabad bother to recall his services, which were lent to the State Bank of Indore. According to the petitioner recalling his services and repatriation back to State Bank of Hyderabad is a condition-precedent for exercising the power of suspension pending enquiry by the State Bank of Hyderabad. It was also the case of the petitioner that the State Bank of Indore received the copy of the order on 20-08-1994 and without serving the same on him, placed it for consideration of the Executive Committee of the Bank, which at its meeting held on 10-10-1994, decided to keep the petitioner under suspension with retrospective effect, i.e., from 12-08-1994, that is how, it is contended, illegally the State Bank of Hyderabad and the State Bank of Indore have acted in the matter.
Even this contention of the writ petitioner is without any merit and substance. On behalf of the State Bank of Hyderabad, an Assistant General Manager, In-charge of the Disciplinary Proceedings Department, filed a detailed counter affidavit in this case. In para 2 of the counter affidavit it has been categorically brought out that the State Bank of Indore has revoked the suspension order passed by it against the writ petitioner on 02-05-1994 and paid him full salary for this period up to 13-10-1994. The orders passed by the Executive Committee of the State Bank of Hyderabad have been served on the petitioner on 14-10-1994 and with effect from that date the order of suspension has been given effect to. Therefore, on the factual count also, the petitioner is not right in his submissions that with retrospective effect he has been kept under suspension by the State Bank of Hyderabad.
From the above averments it becomes imminently clear that the writ petitioner has been paid his full salary and allowances up to 13-10-1994 by the State Bank of Indore and, hence has not suffered on any count between 02-05-1994 to 13-10-1994, except that he has not been permitted to render services. When once the petitioner has been paid his full salary and allowances, even though he has not been permitted to render any services, the petitioner cannot maintain any grievance whatsoever in that regard. When once the order of suspension has been served on him on 14-10-1994, it comes into effect from that date and hence, the plea that he was placed under suspension with retrospective effect, is equally devoid of any merit.
More significantly, in para 3 of the counter affidavit, it is brought out that the petitioner earlier challenged the validity of the order of suspension passed by the State Bank of Hyderabad by instituting W.P.No.7091 of 1996 in this Court and that the said writ petition has been disposed of on 08-04- 1996 directing the Bank to complete the disciplinary proceedings within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which the order of suspension gets automatically revoked. Challenging the said order, the Bank had preferred an Appeal there against by instituting W.A.No.544 of 1996 and a Division Bench of this Court by its order dated 18-06-1996 modified the order of the learned single Judge by directing the Bank to complete the enquiry as expeditiously as possible within a reasonable period. The counter affidavit has categorically stated in para 3 that the petitioner has not stated anything about filing of the abovementioned writ petition and writ appeal, in his pleadings set up in the present writ petition. Though the counter affidavit has been received by the learned counsel for the petitioner, no formal reply is even submitted. Thus, the writ petitioner is certainly guilty of suppressing the information relating to his instituting earlier W.P.No.7091 of 1996 in this Court and the Appeal preferred there against by the Bank in W.A.No.544 of 1996, particularly, when he prayed to declare the Proceedings dated 02-05-1994 of the State Bank of Indore and the Proceedings dated 20-08-1994 of the State Bank of Hyderabad as bad in law.
Since, the petitioner has approached this Court with unclean hands and also in view of the fact that the same relief was once before sought for by him, and was considered but was not acceded to by this Court, to that extent, the relief prayed for by the petitioner in this writ petition cannot be entertained at all.
Further, when once the petitioner has accepted full salary and allowances from State Bank of Indore for the period between 02.05.1994 up to 13.10.1994, he cannot make it a subject matter of a lis now.
The petitioner has attributed malice and bias to the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority and prefers to use very vague and non-descript expressions in that regard. In para 20 of the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition, it is alleged as under:
“……………. In order to fulfill their target of victimizing me by hook or crook they abused their powers to fabricate fraudulent, mischievous and false documents. In the mean while they also managed to bring in the interested persons from the other Associate Banks as Managing Director, Chief General Manager and General Manager (Operations) into State Bank of Hyderabad in connivance with the State Bank of India R.No.3 herein.”
In para 21, it is alleged as under:
“Similarly, the General Manager (Vigilance) of R.No.2 Bank who conducted the investigations into the allegations has been posted to State Bank of Hyderabad as Chief General Manager. He himself prepared the charge sheet with untenable and baseless charges and also conducted the proceedings as Disciplinary Authority. It is not only illegal for the R.No.5 to conduct the proceedings as Disciplinary Authority but he has also fulfilled the singular object of victimizing me in a biased manner. The Managing Director of R.No.2 Bank at the material time, who is the R.No.6 herein has been posted as Managing Director of State Bank of Hyderabad R.No.1 Bank and participated in the proceedings as Appellate Authority with biased approach. Thus both the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority proceeded with the entire disciplinary proceedings in an unfair, illegal, arbitrary and biased manner.”
The petitioner has not narrated or described in detail what are all the documents, which are fabricated and falsified by the State Bank of Indore. He, further, proceeds that only for the sake of victimizing him, the officers associated with the State Bank of Indore earlier, were posted to the State Bank of Hyderabad later on. The petitioner has also not established as to how, those documents are false or for what reasons he considers them to be fabricated ones. He treated this subject very casually, if I may observe.
In this context, it will be relevant to notice that in para 6 of the counter affidavit it is stated as under:
“ It is to clarify that the State Bank of India Central Office which has authority to control its associate banks will effect the transfer and postings of the top Management cadre with the prior approval of the Reserve Bank of India in so far as the postings of the Managing Director are concerned. In so far as said charges to be effected by State Bank of India are concerned the Associate Banks cannot have any say and any role to play. It would be independent decision of the State Bank of India central office to shuffle the officials of the Top Management. Incidentally the then General Manager Vigilance of the Indore might have been posted to State Bank of Hyderabad as Chief General Manager on promotion and nothing can be attributed against the said official as the order of punishment is imposed on the petitioner based on the full fledged enquiry conducted to by the enquiry officer. It is not correct to contend that the then General Manager Vigilance of State Bank of Indore is any way biased in so far as the writ petitioner is concerned. The enquiry and the jurisdiction of the Chief General Manager Hyderabad to be the Disciplinary Authority at the relevant point of time are not question by the writ petitioner before the orders are passed by Disciplinary Authority. Hence the petitioner cannot be permitted to contend the lack of authority of the DA after the proceedings are issued against the writ petitioner. Likewise the allegations regard to the Managing Director who was the earlier M.D. of State Bank of Indore also cannot stand for judicial scrutiny for the very same reason.
…………………………”
The contents of the above passage clearly bring out that it is not the choice of the individuals what matters for them to get posted either as Chief General Manager or as Managing Director of one or the other of the subsidiary banks of the State Bank of India, but the decision of the State Bank of India what matters. In view of non-specific and non-descript and vague allegations of malice and bias made by the petitioner, I do not consider that it is worthy for this Court to be detained any further to examine its content. It is a settled principle of law that malice or bias cannot be attributed in vague and general terms, but must be based upon specific incidents or facts exclusively attributable to the individual concerned. Burden of proving malafides is a heavy burden to discharge vague and casually made allegations suggestive of certain acts by particular set of officers are done with an ulterior motive cannot be accepted by Courts without setting forth proper pleadings and proof. (See:K.Natraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1985 (1) SCC 523) By sheer accident than by design, if a couple of officers happened to function as General Manager (Vigilance) and Managing Director of State Bank of Indore during 1994 and if they have later on been transferred to State Bank of Hyderabad as Chief General Manager and Managing Director, no malice can be attributed to such a chance circumstance. Such a chance circumstance cannot transform into a ground of malice to be used by the petitioner. No specific instance or event attributable to any individual has been narrated in detail by the petitioner anywhere in his otherwise lengthy affidavit filed in support of the writ petition.
It is apt to recall that the element of bias must emanate from the material on record brought forth at the very initial stages of the proceedings, but not after the report of inquiring authority has gone against him. The standard adopted in such circumstances is that of a reasonably prudent man. If such a man views the material on record with a reasonable probability that it was all loaded unjustly against the delinquent and such material which was in his favour has been purposefully omitted, perhaps an element of bias can be said to exist but not otherwise. Far from establishing this, the petitioner has indulged in conjectures and surmises.
Most surprisingly, the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition does not even advert to the allegations, which form the basis for charges framed against the petitioner. Nor does the petitioner advert to the merits of the matter, for pronouncing an opinion as to how he could not have been held guilty of the allegations, which formed the basis of the charges laid against him. A bald statement has been made by the petitioner that he cannot be held accountable for the irregularities that have occasioned in the Merchant Banking Division of the State Bank of Indore. In the counter affidavit at para 5, it is specifically contended that such a statement is an inaccurate and a misleading one. The petitioner was never sought to be proceeded against for any irregularities that took place in the Merchant Banking Division. On the other hand, the allegations, which formed the basis for the charges, relate to the service performed by the petitioner as a Scale-V Officer attached to the Fort Mumbai Branch of State Bank of Indore and also the lapses and irregularities committed by him there.
Charge No.1 laid against the petitioner in the charge-sheet dated 06-05-1996 relates to sanction on adhoc basis various credit facilities, namely, clean O.D., EPC without firm order or L/C, FUBD aggregating Rs.120.00 lac to Ms. Kishitex Exports Private Limited that too in gross violation of the bank’s laid down norms / instructions. The petitioner appears to have sanctioned issuance of L/C for 90 days in a sum of Rs.50.00 lac on 04-06-1993, FUBD of Rs.50.00 lac and EPC in a sum of Rs.20.00 lac on 24- 06-1993. In the imputation in response to this charge it is alleged that on 24- 05-1993, the petitioner allowed opening of a Current Deposit Account No. K- 0158 in the name of the abovementioned Firm with an initial deposit of Rs.1,000/-, wherein subsequently the petitioner permitted clean O.D. to the extent of Rs.17,79,210/- as on 18-06-1993, which amount was beyond his discretionary power for clean advances. On 24-06-1993, with a view to clear up the O.D. balance in the Current Deposit Account, the petitioner sanctioned EPC limit for similar amount, i.e., Rs.17,79,210/- to the said Firm without observing all the necessary lending norms laid down by the Bank, i.e., without having any firm order. Under FUBD limit, during the period from 07-06-1993 to 10-10-1993 the petitioner accepted around 8 Foreign Usance Bills ranging between 90 days to 120 days, aggregating Rs.86,66,700/- approximately, on collection basis. Out of these, one Foreign Usance Bill No.C/1138/93 dated 18-10-1993 for Rs.42,40,800/- approximately (Indian Currency) was discounted by him on 31-12-1993 for Rs.40.00 lac. From the proceeds of this discounted bill, the EPC account was liquidated and the remaining amount was credited to the said Current Deposit Account. However, it was alleged that till date the bill has not been realized.
Similarly, Charge No.2 talks of gross violation of discretionary powers by the petitioner in releasing a sum of Rs.91-00 lac pending sanction / after rejection of regular proposal. It is alleged that the petitioner failed to obtain adequate and enforceable collateral security to secure the Bank’s financial interest. It is further alleged that even after receipt of the advices rejecting the regular proposals by the Head Office of the Bank at Indore vide letter dated 03-12-1993, the petitioner flouting all the prudent norms of Banking, allowed purchase of one more FUB No.C/1285 on 22-12-1993 for Rs.15.00 lac.
Charge No.3 talks of sanction of adhoc limits to M/s. Ellora Industries to a tune of Rs.16.50 lac as on 22-06-1993 contrary to the Bank’s interest and in the process exposed the Bank to a possible laws of Rs.25.39 lac.
Charge No.4 talks of opening on adhoc basis L/Cs on behalf of M/s.
Surendra Recycling Limited in gross violation of the instructions contained in Zonal Manager’s letter No.5673, dated 22-09-1993 and his telex message dated 16-11-1993.
I have adverted to the aforementioned imputations, out of a total of 16 charges laid against the petitioner, only for the purpose of answering the contention canvassed by the petitioner that he is sought to be victimized for the irregularities that have taken place in the Merchant Banking Division of the State Bank of Indore and as a cover up operation, he was victimized. The charge-sheet clearly brought out as to the exact role played by the petitioner behind each of the irregularities committed by him, while functioning as AGM of Fort Mumbai Branch, but not for any irregularities that took place in the Merchant Banking Division.
The Inquiry Officer submitted his exhaustive Report. On each count of the charges, the findings have been recorded. At page 59 of the Report, the Inquiry Officer dealt with the plea of the writ petitioner that it was the duty of the Field Officer / Manager of the Division to take care of the proper functioning of the Division and that the petitioner, as Assistant General Manager, cannot be made accountable. In response thereto, the Inquiry Officer noted as under:
“……………… In a divisionalised branch this practice and compliance is prevalent, but overall responsibility of the Asst. General Manager remains that the system works according to laid down instructions and opinion report are meaning fully compiled and exceptions, if any are brought to his notice. That this was being followed was not evidence as the proceedings revealed.”
Thereafter, towards the end of page 60 of the Report, it was observed in the following terms:
“The charge therefore is generally proved as laid down instructions were not observed with the exception that compilation of opinion report was not the direct responsibility of the Asst. General Manager and control returns were being sent to Zonal Office / credit department, by and large through at times belatedly. The overall responsibility of the Asst. General Manager was of course very much there to establish-control and systems laid down, as most of the credit decisions were adhoc in nature, without detailed assessment of borrowers.”
The writ petitioner has mistaken this statement as if the Inquiry Officer has returned vague findings against him. The Disciplinary Authority in his Order dated 09-11-1999 has discussed the material that has been brought against the petitioner and dealt with every one of the charges laid against the petitioner in his very exhaustive Order running to 119 pages. He found the petitioner guilty of substantive misdemeanor by putting the interests of the Bank to peril and possible loss. For the serious nature of the charges held proved, he considered it appropriate to retire the petitioner compulsorily as a measure of punishment. Even the Appellate Authority has dealt with the grounds urged by the petitioner charge-wise and recorded in Paras 25 and 26 as under:
“25. It is evident that Shri Prasad as Assistant General Manager of the Branch at the material time had grossly failed in his duties to ensure observance of basic guidelines in respect of credit management particularly in the areas of compilation of; opinion reports, appraisals to assess the credit needs, to ensure pre-sanction surveys and post sanction inspections. In a large number of instances the credit decisions, including opening of L.Cs for large sums, were taken on adhoc basis. The devolved LCs were debited to the accounts in a routine manner without reporting the development to the higher authorities.
26. Discretionary powers were exceeded in a number of instances. The control returns were not submitted timely at the stipulated intervals. Further, Shri Prasad disregarded the Controlling authorities’ advice / instructions from time to time not to resort to irregular practices and he failed to initiate steps to avoid reoccurrence, in the interest of the Bank.”
Since, the Appellate Authority could not find any extenuative factors, relevant to the issues raised by the petitioner, he has confirmed the Orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority. In fact, the petitioner has been imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement from the Bank’s service, which is, undoubtedly, one of the major punishments. The charges laid and held established against the petitioner have clearly brought out as to how he has exposed the risk of the interests of the Bank.
The Bank has made available for my perusal the Inquiry Proceedings, which have been recorded in four volumes. Witnesses have been examined in the presence of the writ petitioner and the documents have also been marked in his presence. He was given a free hand to cross examine them. The petitioner has made a vague allegation that the documents have been got marked as Management Exhibits without following the principles contained in the Indian Evidence Act. It is a settled principle of law that adherence to the strict principles of the Evidence Act will not be applicable to the disciplinary proceedings and on the other hand, the general rules, which are in conformity with the principles of natural justice are required to be followed. If at all the petitioner has suffered any prejudice in the process, he has to demonstrate the same by specifically setting out as to how the procedure followed by the Bank in marking the documents has caused prejudice for him to establish his defence. The petitioner has failed to do the same.
It is not in doubt that technical rules of evidence do not apply to domestic tribunals. But, at the same time, it is equally vital that substantive principles relating to collection of evidence and its appreciation must necessarily be observed by such tribunals. All the more so, if any piece of evidence, which is logically probative and which helps the defence of the charged employee shall not be omitted either from being brought on record or eschewed from consideration while analyzing the evidence on record.
It is apt to remember that it is not the breach of every regulation relevant to the disciplinary proceedings, which can secure relief to a party. He has to establish - that all due to the failure to adhere to the strict regime contained in the regulations of the disciplinary proceedings as to how the cause of defense of an employee has suffered. It is apt to remember the words of the Supreme Court in STATE BANK OF PATIALA AND OTHERS
[1]
v. S.K.SHARMA , which are as under:
“Violation of any and every procedural provision cannot be said to automatically vitiate the enquiry held or order passed. Except cases falling under 'no notice', 'no opportunity' and 'no hearing' categories, the complaint of violation of procedural provision should be examined from the point of view of prejudice, viz., whether such violation has prejudiced the delinquent officer/ employee in defending himself properly and effectively. If it is found that he has been so prejudiced, appropriate orders have to be made to repair and remedy the prejudicate, including setting aside the enquiry and/or the order of punishment. If no prejudice is established to have resulted therefrom, it is obvious, no interference is called for.”
Finally, the petitioner without clearly specifying as to how the Chief General Manager is not competent to impose the punishment of compulsory punishment from service by his order dated 09.11.1999 and also as to how the Managing Director of the Bank lacks competence to act as appellate authority, when he decided the appeal on 26.08.2000 kept on setting out that the incompetent authorities have acted as disciplinary authority and appellate authorities in his case. He has not adverted to any provision of the discipline and control regulations framed by the Bank in that regard. However, Sri Addepalli Suryanarayana, learned standing counsel for the bank, has drawn my attention to the circular No.OPD/96-97/6 dated 09.07.1996 issued by the bank brining out that the Board of Directors at the meeting held on 25.05.1996 approved the revised structure of authority in respect of disciplinary actions. For the officers occupying the Senior Manager Grade-IV and V positions, the Chief General Manager has been rendered the disciplinary authority while the Managing Director of the Bank has been made the appellate authority. The petitioner has not raised any issue in that respect at all.
In this context, it would be appropriate to notice that the Supreme Court in “Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Limited and others v. Ananta Saha and others [(2001) 5 Supreme Court Case 142] has reiterated the legal principle that the conditions of service can be altered unilaterally by the employer but it should be in conformity with legal and constitutional provisions. It was further reiterated that Law which is to be applied in a given case is the law prevailing on the date of decision making (See: paragraph Nos.17 and 18). The petitioner has failed to demonstrate as to how this reconstitution is bad in law.
Therefore as on 09.11.1999 the Board of Directors of the bank have approved the change in the structure of the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority. Hence, Chief General Manager and the Managing Director become competent authorities to deal with the case of the writ petitioner.
For the vague and generalized statements, which the petitioner has made and reiterated, no relief can be granted to the petitioner, particularly, when a writ of mandamus, but not a writ of certiorari, was sought for. A writ of mandamus, as is well known, can be issued when a legal right is sought to be infringed or taken away or a mandatory provision is sought to be breached.
Hence, for this reason also, the writ petition fails and it is accordingly, dismissed, but however, without costs.
Consequently, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand dismissed.
Note:
LR copy to be marked. (bo) mrk 22.04.2014.
[1] AIR 1996 SC 1669
NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J.