Bhaskar Chandra Sahoo vs Chairman, Cuttack Gramya Bank and Another

L. Mohapatra, J.—The petitioner in this writ application calls in question the legality of the order dated October 12, 1991 in Annexure-1 informing him that his service has been dispensed with as his involvement in a theft is not ruled out.

The case of the petitioner is that he was initially appointed as sweeper-cum-waterman in the Cuttack Gramya Bank in July, 1984 and was posted at Aul Branch of the Bank. The petitioner worked in the said branch and thereafter was transferred and posted at different branches of the bank in the district of Cuttack and his last posting was in Sankhatras Branch, where he was working as Sweeper-cum-Water man. While he was working in the aforesaid branch of the Bank on March 20, 1990 an incident of burglary was committed by some unknown miscreants who broke open the window grills and also tried to break open the iron shelf but failed. Having failed in their attempt to commit theft of the cash, the miscreants took away the calculator kept on the table and one piece of master key. On that date the petitioner was sleeping inside the Bank office and accordingly he was suspected to be involved in commission of the theft. The further case of the petitioner is that the police after investigation submitted final form stating that though allegation of theft is correct, sufficient materials are not available for submission of charge-sheet. The final form was submitted on September 15, 1990. After submission of the final form, no objection was filed by the informant and accordingly the same was filed by the informant and accordingly the same was accepted by the learned J.M.F.C. (Rural), Cuttack, by order dated November 30, 1990. The case of the petitioner is that during the investigation by the police he was not allowed to work by the bank and after submission of final form though he was entitled to be retained in service, the impugned letter in Annexure-1 dated October 12, 1991 was issued informing him that the Bank does not want to retain him in service on the ground that his involvement in the theft case is not ruled out.

Shri Mohanty, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner challenged the action of the bank basically on two grounds.

(1) The petitioner being a daily wage worker, his service could not have been dispensed with without complying with Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act.

(2) Since the letter in Annexure- 1 casts a stigma, he should have been given an opportunity of hearing.

The opposite parties have filed a counter affidavit stating that the petitioner was sleeping in the office premises in the night and the theft took place and while submitting the final form also the Investigating Officer observed that the petitioner was strongly suspected but the evidence was not sufficient to submit a charge-sheet. According to the opposite parties, since the petitioner was the prime suspect in the offence and charge-sheet could not be submitted because of insufficiency of evidence such person could not be retained by the bank and therefore, it was decided to dispense with the services of the petitioner on the self same ground. The learned counsel appearing for the bank submitted that the observation made in the letter in Annexure-1 is only a reflection of what the Investigating Officer observed in the final form and does not cast a stigma. He further submitted that the petitioner being a daily wage worker and there being no material on record to show that he had completed 240 working days in a calendar year, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order is liable to be set aside for non-compliance of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act has also no force.

On perusal of the documents filed along with the petition, it appears that the petitioner has not filed a single document indicating his appointment in the bank at any point of time. However, from the orders in Annexure- 1 and 4 it appears that he had been engaged by the bank as a water-boy. Though these two documents indicate engagement of the petitioner as waterman, there is no other material to show that the petitioner worked for 240 days in a calendar year so as to claim the benefit u/s 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. Moreover, it was open for the petitioner to raise a dispute and absence of any material on record, it is difficult for this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 to accept the contention of the petitioner without support of any document.

So far as the second point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, the Investigating Officer while submitting the final form observed as follows:

Though the water boy was strongly suspected, the evidence is not sufficient to book him in the case.

The Manager of Cuttack Gramya Bank who has issued Annexure- 1 appears to have taken the language from the final report while issuing the aforesaid letter and observed that the involvement of the petitioner in the theft case is not ruled out. In our view, the observation made in Annexure- 1 is not stigmatic. In this connection, reference may be made to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Pavanendra Narayan Verma Vs. Sanjay Gandhi P.G.I. of Medical Sciences and anr, In the aforesaid decision an observation in the impugned order was made to the effect that "work and conduct has not been found to be satisfactory". The Apex Court in considering the same held it not to be stigmatic. Since the observation made in Annexure-I is not stigmatic, there was no necessity for the bank to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before issuing the letter in Annexure- 1.

We, therefore, do not find any merit in the writ application and accordingly dispose of the same with the observations made above.

P.K. Mohanty, J.

I agree.