G. Malakonda Reddy vs Andhra Bank Officer Union and Another

P.S. Mishra, C.J.—Instant appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent of the Court by the second respondent in the Writ Petition No.15363 of 1996 and fourth respondent in Writ Petition No. 11873 of 1996, declaration in whose favour by the Civil Court and consequent correction of the entry in the Service Book of the Andhra Bank in respect of his Date of Birth is nullified by the impugned judgment in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has raised two important questions:

(i) Docs the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 15363 of 1996 - Andhra Bank Officers Union and Writ Petition No. 11873 of 1996 Andhra Bank Depositors'' Welfare Association, has locus standi to question the correction of the said entry; and

(ii) Whether a correction which has been carried out in respect of Date of Birth of the second respondent and fourth respondent respectively in Writ Petition Nos.15363 of 1996 and 11873 of 1996, on the basis of a decree in a Civil Suit -O.S.No.170 of 1987 dated 31-8-1987, can be impugned in a collateral proceeding by way of Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

It is well settled that for a writ, in the nature of Certiorari, in particular, and ordinarily for all other writs, orders or directions of the Court which exercises the plenary power, a person whose right or interest is inflicted or injured by the impugned action alone has the locus standi. Exception is made, however, in litigations which are generally found to espouse a common cause of the public or of a class of person or persons with whom the petitioner or petitioners share interest in common, and in such cases of public interest, persons who otherwise cannot be seen as aggrieved by the impugned order are accepted as petitioners, their petitions are entertained and orders in respect of such common causes are made pro bono publico. It would be difficult to think how for the petitioner-Union or the Association any such cause is available with respect to the correction in the Date of Birth of the respondent-Appellant herein. None the less, the learned single Judge has held that the petitioner-Association/Union is entitled to file the writ petition questioning alternation of Date of Birth of the respondent-Appellant, both on the ground that promotional avenues of its members are affected and also on the ground that the Union has come forward to espouse a public wrong and fight for its rectification. In grey areas in particular where the action is brought by a busy body before the Court or a person who has really the public interest in his heart, Courts do take notice of the fact whether the petition is guided by any motive or personal gain or otherwise oblique consideration; whether petitioner has acted bona fide and has sufficient interest in maintaining the action for judicial redress of a public injury and decide upon relaxing the rule of locus standi. Learned single Judge has chosen to do so and is guided mainly by the view taken by the Supreme Court in Janata Dal Vs. H.S. Chowdhary and Others, .

There is no manner of doubt, however, that the two petitioners who have claimed to be Associations of individuals are not recognised as a legal entity or a juristic person except in so far as individual interest of the members of the two Associations/Unions are concerned. They are neither registered as a Society under any enactment or a Statute, nor are recognised as such by any competent authority under any Statute. Since, however, learned single Judge has observed that individuals who have constituted the Employees''s Union have complained of adverse effect upon their promotional avenues on account of such alteration in the Date of Birth, which according to them, has been done illegally, we see no ground to hold that because the two writ petitioners - Respondents have not satisfied the norm of a juristic person and thus of a legal entity in the capacity of Association of individuals, they do not have any locus standi.

On the question, how the civil Court decree be viewed, on the facts of the instant case, has been dealt with by the learned single Judge. He has noted the facts in some detail and come to the conclusion that the action of the respondent-Appellant in filing a suit at Visakhapatnam where he was working as Assistant General Manager leaving the competent Court in whose jurisdiction he was allegedly born and making the District Collector, Visakhapatnam as party-defendant, leaving the Collector, Nellore who would have been in a position to speak about the authenticity/correctness of the alleged Date of Birth extract produced by him, and in obtaining an ex parte decree by producing an alleged certified copy of the Birth extract without summoning the original, smacks of legal fraud and concluded accordingly that the petitioner-respondents are able to produce sufficient material to show that the decision taken by the Officers concerned in favour of the second respondent-Appellant was unconscionable and was taken in bad faith. In course of hearing of the appeal, when the Court indicated that the issue which the Division Bench wanted to be resolved by the Full Bench, require the Court to be addressed on the question, whether in exercise of its supervisory power and the power of judicial review, this Court would be entitled to examine, whether the civil Court decree is vitiated by fraud and thus is a nullity and whether the civil Court''s decree is such which would have any effect other than as evidence in support of the claim of the respondent-Appellant that he was born on a particular date and no more and no less and while considering such evidence, the concerned authority would also be entitled to take note of the fact that the status as an Officer of the Bank which the respondent-Appellant acquired, was created on the basis of the declaration as respects to Date of Birth, and thus, except in such cases in which it is shown that entry of the Date, of Birth was made without the knowledge of the respondent-Appellant, he would not be entitled to seek any correction thereof unless any rule/regulation and/or any other provision to the said effect was available to seek the correction and in any event after a long period of service when such correction is sought for and it is evidenced that a suit was filed to create evidence for such correction, concerned Officers would reject the same on the ground of laches and delay in seeking the correction and also on the ground that such correction is not sought for any bona fide reason. Learned Counsel for respondent-Appellant has indicated that the appellant would be concentrating mainly on the view expressed by the learned single Judge rather strongly about the conduct of the appellant in instituting the suit in the manner as alleged, and obtaining the ex parte decree; and two, in obtaining correction allegedly with the connivance of his colleague officer. He has urged before us that when there are circumstances which show that the Date of Birth entered could be wrong and the appellant was not responsible for making any misrepresentation in this behalf to benefit himself, even if the correction resulted in some benefit to the appellant, it would be wrong to call his action mala fide or fraudulent.

Learned single Judge has held that the appellant entertained the idea of getting his Date of Birth altered when he was holding the possession of Assistant General Manager in Senior Management Grade Scale-IV which is next to the top executive grade in the hierarchy of officers of the bank, and observed that the method adopted by him in getting his Date of Birth altered in unbecoming of a Senior executive holding a responsible position in the bank. In the words of the learned single Judge, instead of observing high standards of character, integrity and calibre and setting an example to his Subordinates and inspire confidence of the public in the system of administration followed in this country, he degraded to the extent of playing fraud on the bank to get extension of service by few more months. Such a trend on the part of the senior executive has to be deprecated in the strongest possible language and such trends should be nipped in the bud, so that atleast others may not repeat such a reprehensible conduct. If any lenient view is taken, it will be not only a bad precedent, but amounts to putting premium on dishonesty.

Disapproval of the conduct of the appellant and finding fault with the correction of entry of Date and Birth of the appellant would remove without doubt the precedent, if at all, the case of correction of Date of Birth of the appellant is the only precedent, that would encourage unscrupulous elements in the employment of the bank to seek such corrections by obtaining fraudulent civil Court decrees. A reprimand, even if the acts done by the appellant preceding the correction aforementioned are not bona fide, by the Court may not be necessary. A Court''s conclusion on such facts which are presented before it, of certain act of a person, not being bona fide, or not done in good faith, is not always necessarily a finding that the act disapproved of the person concerned, is dishonest or fraudulent. In legal sense, even such acts which are innocently done, but the purpose for which they are done are not found as unauthorised by law is termed as fraudulent or dishonest act. While the act is termed as fraudulent and dishonest, the person who is involved in the act is not necessarily called a fraud or a dishonest person. It will be reading thus in the conduct of the appellant the seeds of dishonesty beyond the facts in issue before the Court and unwarranted if as a consequence of the findings in respect of the fraudulent character of a Civil Court decree, or the decree being used as a contrivance for the correction in respect of the Date of Birth, it is held that what is seen in the facts as narrated in the impugned judgment, it is something which was unbecoming of a Senior executive holding a responsible position in the bank, or that it was something which would be setting a wrong example for the Subordinates as the appellant had not observed expected standards of character and integrity and calibre. We hold accordingly that the findings recorded by the learned single Judge that the appellant by the acts as alleged against him degraded to the extent of playing fraud on the bank to get extension of service by few months, is unwarranted.

Mr. J.V. Suryanarayana, learned Counsel for appellant has informed the Court that the appellant has accepted the verdict of the learned single Judge, and thus, has not availed of the benefit of extension of service, as no soon the judgment was pronounced by the learned single Judge, he was removed from service. We see no useful purpose, thus in recording any specific findings on the questions afore-mentioned which in our view would receive greater consideration of the Court in appropriate case.

Since we have refrained from entering into the issue of locus standi of the petitioner-Appellants beyond the observations made by us above, and since the apprehended precedent for other unscrupulous employees is set aside by the impugned judgment, which is affirmed by us. and we have chosen to set the record straight by removing such stigma, victimisation which would stick upon the appellant for dealing harshly by awarding exemplary costs, we are inclined in the instant case to reduce the penal costs of Rs.25,000/- to the costs of the proceeding incurred by the petitioner-respondent. Hearing fee of the learned Counsel for the petitioner-respondent is fixed as a token at Rs.2,500/-.

With the observation, as above, the appeals are dismissed accordingly.