Chinnamma vs State Bank of Travancore

Dama Seshadri Naidu, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, apart from perusing the record. Since the issue lies in a narrow compass, this Court proposes to dispose of the writ petition at the admission stage itself.

On termination from service through Exhibit P6 order, the petitioner, being a Sweeper in the respondent Bank, has approached this Court assailing the said order of termination as illegal and arbitrary.

The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been working for the past twenty two years in the respondent Bank and that summary termination of her services cannot be countenanced. She further submits that the petitioner is an illiterate coming from a weaker section of the society, not knowing the ways and means of the service regulations. According to the learned counsel, when the petitioner initially entered into service, she obtained a certificate from St.Joseph''s Girl''s High School, Paipad, where she had studied and produced it before the authorities. According to the learned counsel, there had been no occasion for the petitioner to suspect the correctness of the date of birth reflected in the said certificate. Accordingly, she has urged this Court to set aside Exhibit P6 order and direct the respondent authorities to reinstate her into service.

Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Bank has submitted that it is evident from Exhibit P2 that the petitioner joined the respondent Bank as Part-time Sweeper only on 01.11.2013. Having entertained a doubt about the correctness of the date of birth, as had been submitted by the petitioner at the time of her entry into service, the respondent Bank made enquiries with the school in question. In fact, it has come to light through Exhibit P4 that the petitioner, contends the learned Standing Counsel, was actually born on 26.12.1958 rather than on 26.12.1966.

The learned Standing Counsel has also contended that even though Exhibit P3 show cause notice was issued, the petitioner did not submit any explanation. Under those circumstances, taking Exhibit P4 certificate issued by the school as proof of the correct date of birth, the respondent Bank terminated the petitioner from service for the misconduct of producing a false certificate.

On perusal of the record, this Court finds that, earlier the petitioner seems to have worked in State Bank of India, which on an earlier occasion terminated the services of the petitioner. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed W.P.(C)No. 9908/2012, which was disposed of by this Court through Exhibit P1 judgment. Though this Court has directed the employer to consider the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders thereon, the petitioner has not produced any material to ascertain what has happened subsequent to Exhibit P1 judgment. The fact, however, remains that the petitioner had earlier worked in State Bank of India rather than in the respondent Bank, in which Bank she worked only from 01.11.2013. Accordingly, this Court is constrained to conclude that there is no substance in the claim of the petitioner that she had been working in the respondent Bank for more than twenty years.

Concerning the discrepancy in the date of birth, it could be seen that despite a very grave charge having been levelled against the petitioner, through Exhibit P3 show cause that she had produced a false certificate, the petitioner remained insouciant and did not bother to give any reply, thereby missing an opportunity to put on record her defence. Under those circumstances, in the light of Exhibit P4 certificate issued by the school authorities that the petitioner was actually born on 26.12.1958, rather than on 26.12.1966, the respondent Bank was compelled to take the final step of terminating the petitioner''s services on the ground of producing a false certificate, thereby securing employment by playing fraud.

Given the gravity of the charges the petitioner has faced and further given the callous attitude of the petitioner in defending herself on the issue of correct date of birth, this Court is of the opinion that the action of the respondent Bank cannot be held to be unsustainable.

As the termination is fraught with grave consequences, this Court looked for any convincing explanation from the petitioner either in the pleadings or in the oral submissions, but not with much success. The petitioner has only pleaded ignorance and poverty as defence. It is axiomatic that in disciplinary proceedings, the scope of judicial review is severely circumscribed. Since no vitiating factors could be discerned from the record calling for any judicial interference, this Court is of the opinion that the writ petition is without substance.

In the facts and circumstances, this Court holds that the writ petition is devoid of any merit and accordingly dismisses it. No order as to costs.