Ram Chandra Tandon vs Regional Manager, Bank of Baroda and Another

S.K. Sen, C.J.—Sri Ajai Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri C. P. Misra, learned counsel for the respondents appeared.

The short facts involved in this special appeal inter alia are that the writ petitioner appellant (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) has retired from the post of Head Cashier from Bank of Baroda, Branch Aonla, district Bareilly. He claimed that he had an unblemished and excellent service record and there was no complaint of any kind against him throughout his service career. He applied for the retirement under the Bank of Baroda Employees Voluntary Retirement Scheme and accordingly his application was considered on 31,3.2001 by the respondents. A true copy of the acceptance letter dated 31.3.2001 has been filed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. Thereafter all the retrial benefits including Provident Fund, Gratuity and Additional Retirement Benefits were credited in his Saving Bank Account No. 2559. The amounts of Provident Fund Rs. 3,10.736.34. Gratuity of Rs. 2,48,274 and the additional retirement benefit of Rs. 80,883 were credited to his savings bank account on 14.6.2001, 28.6.2001 and 10.8.2001 respectively the total amount being Rs. 6.39,893.34. On 24.7.2001 he presented a cheque for Rs. 10,000 for withdrawal which was not honoured by the concerned branch of the bank and after enquiry he was informed that the payment could not be made without permission of the Branch Manager/ Regional Manager which is endorsed on the Ledger Book. It is alleged that the respondents have stopped operation of account of the petitioner without giving any notice or show cause to him, in most arbitrary and illegal manner. It is further alleged that the petitioner moved an application to the respondent No. 1 on 25.7.2001 stating therein his sufferings and also prayed for the release of his amount illegally withheld. It is also alleged in the said application that the wife of the petitioner has been suffering seriously and is also advised to undergo the operation which required handsome amount. Under such circumstances, the petitioner in the writ petition has prayed for release of the amount of Gratuity, Provident Fund and Additional Retiral benefits deposited in the respondent bank.

Learned single Judge however, by his order dated 5.12.2001 held that the petitioner has an alternative remedy to file a suit and dismissed the writ petition on the ground of availability of the alternative remedy. It is quite true, if disputed questions of facts are there, instead of granting relief in the writ petition, the matter can be relegated to the suit. In the instant case since no counter-affidavit has been filed and the writ petition was dismissed in limine only on the ground of alternative remedy, we are of view that the respondent being a nationalised bank under Article 12 of the Constitution of India the writ petition is maintainable against the bank.

The petitioner has complained of arbitrary action against the bank and also violation of natural justice. Such matter unless disputed on affidavits, should not be dismissed only on the ground of alternative remedy. Right to equality of opportunity in the matters of public employment has been granted under Article 16 of the Constitution of India and has been recognised as fundamental right and the petitioner being a retired employee of the nationalised bank having made out the allegations in the writ petition that he has suffered due to arbitrary action of the bank, there is no reason for relegating the writ petitioner for alternative remedy of suit at the initial stage when no counter-affidavit has been filed disputing the allegations. Under such circumstances, we are of view that the writ petition is maintainable and the question of alternative remedy of filing suit does not arise at this stage.

We accordingly set aside the order dated 5.12.2001 passed by learned single Judge and are of the view that the writ petition should be heard on merits. Counter-affidavit, if any, may be filed within three weeks as prayed for and rejoinder-affidavit may be filed within a week thereafter. List the writ petition for hearing before the learned single Judge taking up such writ petitions.

With the aforesaid observations, the Special Appeal is allowed. It is expected that the writ petition will be disposed of at an early date as the writ petitioner is a retired employee, subject however, to the convenience of the learned single Judge.