Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. As observed above, the chronology of events has its own tale to tell: On 19.09.1984, the third respondent,  then working as an internal auditor, was transferred to the Evening Branch of the petitioner Bank at Thalasseri. The General Manager through a letter dated 17.10.1984, required the third respondent to prepare the outstanding list of Saving Bank Depositors as on 30.06.1984; the third respondent had to prepare the list by 31.10.1984. The petitioner could not.

4. On 16.11.1984 (in a fortnights' time) the Branch Manager called for an explanation from the third respondent, who, in fact, submitted it on 19.11.1984 (in three days) narrating the practical difficulties in completing the work.

W.P.(C)No.21276/2012:

Issue No.V:

56. In the light of the judgment rendered in W.P.(C) No.11547/2015, this Court desires to hold that no decision needs to be rendered in this writ petition in which the third respondent's (first respondent's) promotion was assailed. The learned counsel on either side have, however, submitted that the issue of qualification for promotion still needs to be determined, lest it should lead to a multiplicity of proceedings.

Qualification:

57. On the issue of qualification, the Bank's singular contention is that the third respondent has not been qualified to hold the promotional post, i.e. Accountant. The third respondent was initially working in the post of Internal Auditor, which is an ex-cadre post. Later, on his reversion, in the light of the fact that the Committee on appeal set  aside the second limb of the punishment, i.e. barring promotion for two years, the third respondent sought promotion to the post of Accountant, which is--though equal to the post of Internal Auditor--a sanctioned post.