Petitioner was selected by the Gurgaon Gramin Bank as a Trainee Branch Manager and after training, appointed as Branch Manager on probation at its Mohna Branch with effect from 16.10 1978.
However, the bank did number initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner but on 17.8.1982 the Bank terminated his services invoking and relying upon the said regulation 10 2 a which enabled a termination simpliciter.
Petitioners appeal to the Board of Directors of the Bank was turned down on 28.8.1982.
The period of probation was one year in the first instance, with power to the Bank to extend the probation for a further period of six months at the end of which the probationer would either be companyfirmed if he was found suitable of if, otherwise, discharged from service.
Petitioner was number discharged number an express order of companyfirmation made.
The 18 months period representing the outer most limit of the permissible period of probation expired sometime in April, 1980.
Special Leave is granted and both the appeal and the writ petition are taken up for final hearing and disposed of by this judgment.
The Bank asked the Supdt.
The special leave petition, directed against the order dated, 1.2.1983 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in C.W.P. 5003 of 1982 and the writ petition invoking Article 32 of the Constitution, pertain to the same subject matter and raise the question as to the companystitutional validity of Regulation 10 2 a of the Gurgaon Gramin Bank Staff Services Regulations 1980 Regulations for short enabling a termination simpliciter and companysequently, of the validity of the order dated, 17.8.1982 of Gurgaon Gramin Bank Bank for short terminating the petitioners services as Branch Manager in exertion of the said Regulation.
Petitioner, companytinued in service.
There were allegations against him some of them quite serious of acts of bad faith including that he was number disbursing the loans granted to the gramin borrowers the full sanctioned amounts, but was helping himself to some portions of it.
Thereafter, petitioner moved the High Court in CWP No.
There was also an allegation that Petitioner had refused to accept the second set of keys of the cash chest from another official who was in custody of the keys and who was number attending the Bank that day, as a result of which the cash companyld number be opened on a working day.
of Police, Fandabad to look into these allegations.
5003/1982.
of Police, it would appear, reported that the allegations according to him were substantiated and companymended disciplinary action against the petitioner.
Apparently, the companyrse of petitioners service did number run smooth.
The High Court, dismissed the writ petition by its order dated, 1.2.1983, number under appeal.
On April, 1981, the Supdt.
