Karnataka High Court
Syndicate Bank vs The National Commission For Scheduled ... on 19 June, 2012
Author: H N Nagamohan Das
Bench: H. N. Nagamohan Das
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE, 2012
BEFORE:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. N. NAGAMOHAN DAS
WRIT PETITION NO.14645 OF 2009(S-RES)
BETWEEN:
Syndicate Bank
A Bank constituted under the
Central Act 5 of 1970, having
Its Head Office at Manipal
Udupi District and Corporate
Office at Gandhinagar
Bangalore-560009
Represented by its
Deputy General Manager(P)
Sri. H.N.Vishweshwar,
Aged about 55 years. ... PETITIONER
(By Sri.Prabhu, Advocate)
AND:
1. The National Commission for
Scheduled Castes
5th Floor, Lokanayak Bhavan
New Delhi-110003
Represented by its Chairman.
2. Syndicate Bank SC/ST Employees
Association (Registered)
Affiliated to All India SC/ST Bank
Employees Confederation
No.H-740, Palam Extension
No.7, dwarka
Post Palam village
2
New Delhi-110045,
Represented by its
General Secretary.
3. Sri.K.S.Badlia
Officer -Scale -IV
Chief Manager
Syndicate Bank
Chandini Chowk Branck
New Delhi.
... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri. S.M.Patil, Adv. for R2 & R3;
Sri.Y.Hariprasad, Adv. for R1)
*****
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India, praying to call for records of
the proceeding on the file of the R1, Culminating in the
order Annexure-A, order dated 22.04.09 issued by the
National Commission for Scheduled Caste.
This petition coming on for Hearing this day, the
Court made the following:-
ORDER
In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 22.04.2009 as per Annexure-A passed by the first respondent.
2. Petitioner is a Nationalised Bank. The third respondent is an officer in the petitioner - Bank in scale - 3 IV. The third respondent is also the Secretary of second respondent - SC/ST Employees Association in the petitioner- Bank. The third respondent in his capacity as General Secretary of the second respondent gave representations on 26.06.2007, 17.09.2007, 01.06.2008, 15.07.2008 and 25.07.2008 and also further representations to the first respondent expressing numerous grievances relating to the service conditions of SC/ST employees in the petitioner - Bank. The first respondent after providing an opportunity to the petitioner
- Bank and by considering the entire material, passed the impugned order at Annexure 'A' dated 22.04.2009. In this impugned order at Annexure-A, certain findings are given and certain directions are issued to the petitioner - Bank and the same reads as under:
"On the perusal of the records/facts placed before the Commission and hearing the CMD & GM(P) of the bank and the General Secretary of the petitioner Association the Commission is fully convinced that the Bank had acted in an unfair manner and against all cannons of fair play and justice. The following are the findings of the Commission:4
1. The Commission found that there was no transparency in conducting the promotion processes and no SC/ST representative was associated in the DPC's to protect the interest of SC Officers as the bank have been failed to adhere to the Govt. instructions and the norms set by themselves. Therefore, the Commission is constrained to pronounce that both the promotion processes conducted in 208 and 2009 for the promotions of officers from scale IV to V are violation of Govt. of India instructions, therefore, the Hon'ble Member observed that these promotion exercise become " null & void".
However, keeping in view the image of the Bank, the Commission direct the Bank that the promotion case of Mr.K.S.Badlia be considered w.e.f 01.05.2008 with all consequential retrospective benefits. Similarly other officers, particularly belonging to SC & ST categories, should also be considered for promotion either from 02.05.2008 or 25.01.2009 depending upon their seniority and performances. The Bank is also advised to follow meticulously all the Government instructions/orders/directions/ rules and procedures in future to avoid such situation to reoccur.
5
2. The records placed before us and the arguments adduced clearly established the fact that the management have been encouraging, supporting and favouring Mr.Badlia's rival association. Therefore, keeping in view all the facts & circumstances of the case the Commission hereby direct the bank to hold quarterly joint meeting on rotation basis atleast for 3 years or till the matter is disposed off by the Court, wherever is later, the bank is further directed not to discriminate the office-bearers of various SC & ST Employees Association and also not to harass, humiliate and victimize the office-bearers of Mr.Badlia's Association.
3. The Commission found that the transfer order for Ballabgarh branch issued to Mr.Badalia was discriminatory and vindictive, therefore, the management of Syndicate Bank is directed to treat his entire forced absentia as on duty and re-credit/release/re-pay his salary with up to date interest @ 24% p.a for the above said period and compensate him with all the consequential losses thereof.
4. The Commission found the existence of nepotism and unfair practice in the promotions held in 2008 and 2009, therefore, the bank is 6 directed to furnish the details of all the cases mentioned above by the petitioner and also other such cases including the relationship of all the promotees with the interview Committee/DPC members & CMD's such as their states, castes, cadres (e.g. RDO, IT officer, etc), details of the cases (irregularities/frauds, etc), to enable the Commission to place the correct position to the Government and other concerned authorities so that the interest of honest & performing officers in general and SC & ST officers in particular may be secured/protected.
5. The Commission found that writing annual confidential Report/Performance Appraisal on the basis of 3 months is not at all in order, therefore, the bank is directed to review and write Mr.Badlia's ACR/PA for the year 2007-2008 on the average basis of his last 5 years ACRs/Performance Appraisals.
6. The compliance report in respect of all the above matters be submitted to the Commission latest by 30th April 2009.
Its copies may be sent to Ministry of Finance(Department. of Financial Services), for their necessary action in the matters." 7
3. Aggrieved by this impugned order at Annexure 'A', the petitioner is before this Court.
4. Heard the arguments on both side and perused the entire writ papers.
5. On the question of powers of first respondent- Commission, the Supreme Court and this Court rendered certain opinions. It is useful to extract the opinions expressed by the Courts in this regard. The Supreme Court in the case of All India Indian Overseas Bank SC and ST Employees Welfare Association and Others Vs. Union of India Others reported in 1996(6) SCC 606 held as under:
"All the procedural powers of a civil court given to the National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes by Article 338(8) of the Constitution of India are for the limited purpose of investigating any matter under Article 338(5)(a) or inquiring into any complaint under Article 338(5)(b). The powers of a civil court of granting injunctions, temporary or permanent, do not inhere in the Commission nor can such a power be inferred or derived from a reading of 8 clause(8) of Article 338 of the Constitution. The Commission having not been specifically granted any power to issue interim injunctions, lacks the authority to issue an order of the type found in the letter dated 4.3.1993 directing the Bank (Respondent 3 herein) to stop the promotion process pending further investigation and final verdict in the manner."
6. This Court in the case of Karnataka Antibiotics and Another Vs. National Commission for SC and ST and Others reported in ILR 2008 KAR 3305 held as under:
"Constitution of India- Articles 338- Constitution of National Commission for Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes-Power of the Commission to setaside a concluded enquiry and an order of penalty- HELD, The Second respondent being the member of the first respondent Commission is not empowered to set aside a concluded inquiry and the order of penalty and the order of Appelalte Authority under Article 338 of the Constitution of India - ON FACTS, HELD- The second respondent directed the third respondent to conduct a fresh inquiry, to treat fourth respondent as deemed to 9 have been continued in service and to pay him the salary and other allowances. By this impugned direction the second respondent virtually set asides the inquiry report dated 13.6.2005, order of penalty dated 15.12.2005 and the order of appellate authority dated 27.1.2006. Therefore, the impugned direction issued by the second respondent is without power and authority."
7. A reading of Article 338 and the judgment referred to above, it is clear that the first respondent- National Commission can enquire into the complaints and recommend the concerned authority to set-right the injustice caused to SC and ST employees. It is further clear that the first respondent-National Commission cannot interfere with an administrative functioning of the institutions, reversing the orders already passed and from issuing directions to carry-out certain positive Acts. Keeping this in view, it is necessary to examine the contents of Annexure -A the impugned order passed by the first respondent.
10
8. In the impugned order, the first respondent declared the promotion given by the petitioner Bank to certain employees during the years 2008 and 2009 as null and void. It is further directed to promote the third respondent, to treat his period of absence as on duty and to pay the salary for the period of absence with interest 24% p.a. This part of the impugned order is bad in law.
9. In the impugned order, certain recommendations are made to consider the promotion of SC and ST employees, to hold quarterly joint meetings on rotation basis, not to discriminate the office bearers of various SC and ST Employees Associations, not to harass them and not to victimise them. Insofar as these recommendations are concerned, they are within the ambit and powers of first respondent and the same need not be interfered.
10. For the reasons stated above, the following:
ORDER
i) The writ petition is partly allowed.
ii) The impugned order dated 22.04.2009 as per Annexure-A passed by the first respondent 11 insofar as it relates to declaring the promotion given to clause-IV and clause-V scale of officers during the years 2008 and 2009 as null and void, directing to promote the third respondent and to extend the consequential retrospective benefits, to treat the period of absence of third respondent as on duty and to pay him the arrears of salary with 24% interest per annum are hereby quashed.
iii) The other recommendations in the impugned order are to be considered and compliance report to be submitted by the petitioner-Bank to the first respondent.
Accordingly, the writ petition is hereby disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE LB/PV