9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Challenge to disciplinary proceedings by an erstwhile employee of a bank following a Scheme of Amalgamation. 2. Interpretation of the terms and conditions of service post-amalgamation. 3. Rights of employees excluded from absorption by the transferee bank. 4. Validity of disciplinary proceedings against an employee for misconduct pre-amalgamation. 5. Representation by a lawyer in disciplinary proceedings. 6. Allegations of mala fide intentions in instituting disciplinary proceedings. Detailed Analysis: 1. The writ petition challenges disciplinary proceedings initiated by Canara Bank against the petitioner, a former employee of Lakshmi Commercial Bank, post their amalgamation. The amalgamation was sanctioned by the Reserve Bank of India, transferring all rights, powers, claims, and obligations to Canara Bank. The petitioner was absorbed by Canara Bank with continuity of service, as per the terms agreed upon in a conference held between the management and employees' association. 2. The Supreme Court's decision in a related case emphasized the need for a fair hearing before excluding employees not absorbed by the transferee bank. The Court directed their absorption with continuity of service, leaving room for subsequent legal actions. The petitioner, an excluded employee initially, was later absorbed by Canara Bank as per the Supreme Court's order, binding him to the terms set in the conference minutes of October 3, 1985. 3. The petitioner's argument that disciplinary proceedings for misconduct during his tenure with Lakshmi Commercial Bank cannot be pursued by Canara Bank post-amalgamation was dismissed. The Court held that Canara Bank, having acquired all rights and duties of the transferor bank, is entitled to conduct disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner for pre-amalgamation conduct, as per the Supreme Court's order. 4. The petitioner's objection to being subjected to Canara Bank's disciplinary regulations for misconduct during his employment with Lakshmi Commercial Bank was overruled. The Court noted no substantial differences between the rules of the two banks and upheld the applicability of Canara Bank's regulations post-amalgamation. 5. The petitioner's request for legal representation in the disciplinary proceedings was denied by the Disciplinary Authority, citing the absence of a legal practitioner as the Presenting Officer. The Court clarified that employees do not have an inherent right to legal representation unless specified conditions are met, which were not fulfilled in this case. 6. The petitioner's claim of mala fide intentions behind the disciplinary proceedings was rejected. Canara Bank's actions against other reinstated officers and the ongoing disciplinary actions demonstrated a consistent approach, negating the petitioner's allegations of mala fides. The Court found no grounds to halt the disciplinary proceedings through a writ petition. In conclusion, the Court dismissed the petition challenging the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, upholding Canara Bank's right to conduct the proceedings post-amalgamation and rejecting the petitioner's claims of procedural irregularities and mala fide intentions.
|
