ition No 9933 of 1982 Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India I WITH Special Leave Petition Civil  No 13981 of 1982 From the Judgment and Order dated 21
10 1982 of the Bombay High Court in W P No 3137 of 1982
section Balakrishnan  M K D Namboodiri and Ramesh Keswani for the Petitioners
K N Bhat and Ms Madhu Moolchandani for the Respondents
The writ petition and the special leave petition are malicious and ill motivated
But they have served one good purpose  namely  they have brought to light the undesirable activities of the petitioners themselves
We will have some harsh things to say about the petitioners in our judgment
Indian attempt to malign the top management of the Canara Bank  they have exposed themselves and the allegations have boomeranged
The spider has been caught in its own web
The first petitioner in the writ petitions is SA Kini  Deputy General Secretary of the Canara Bank Officers  Association and the second petitioner is the Canara Bank Officers Association
The 757 respondents in the writ petition are the Union of India represented by the Secretary  Ministry of Finance  Department of Economic Affairs  Banking Division  Canara Bank a nationalised bank  the Chairman and Managing Director of Canara Bank and the General Manager of Canara Bank
The special leave petition is directed against an order of the High Court of Bombay dated i October 21  1982 dismissing a writ petition filed by the same petitioners as in the writ petition before us
The respondents to the petition for special leave are also the same as in the writ petition
The principal allegation made by the petitioners in the writ petition filed in the Bombay High Court and repeated in this Court is that the Chairman and Managing Director  the General Manager and the top officials of the Management of Canara Bank have been using their official position and authority to coerce the officers and staff of the Canara Bank to collect funds for the Canara Bank Relief and Welfare Society
Apart from seeking donations from customers  it is alleged that one of the principal modes of collecting funds was the sale of greeting cards by the officials of the bank to their customers
Each officer was allotted a certain quota and was compelled to sell his quota of cards to customers
The petitioners further alleged that officers  who protested against the directive to sell greeting cards  were victimised by the bank  and officers  who were highly successful card sellers  were given accelerated promotion over the heads of seniors
Thiruvengandam was cited as an instance of a victimised officers who was denied promotion while Annappa Pai was cited as an instance of an officer  who had benefited and who was allowed to leap over several senior officers and was promoted as a reward for his services by the sale of cards
The petitioners also alleged that the top management was also interested in collecting funds for i Deposit Mobilisation Club  ii The Canara Bank Cultural Brotherhood Organisation and iii The Kamakoti Prabha Trust
758 At the hearing before us  the allegations in regard to the Deposit Mobilisation Club and the Canara Bank Cultural Brother hood were abandoned
In regard to the Kamakoti Prabha Trust  the allegation was that it was started by one section Venkataraman  who at the time when it was formed  happened to be the Deputy General Manager of the bank
He has long since retired from the bank and nothing has been shown to us as to how the Kamakoti Prabha Trust is in any manner linked with the top management of the bank or how the management has promoted the interests of the Trust
It is unnecessary to pursue the allegations made in regard to the Kamakoti Prabha Trust  which in our opinion have been made out of pure spite and mere vexation
We are only left with the allegations made in connection with the collection of funds and the sale of greeting cards for the benefit of the Canara Bank Relief and Welfare Society
The allegation that Thiruvengandm was superseded because he refused to sell greeting cards and the allegation that Annappa Pai was given an accelerated promotion because of his excellent performance in selling greeting cards remained mere allegations
There was no material whatsoever placed before us to substantiate either of these allegations
It was  however  asserted before us by the petitioners and admitted by the respondents that until the year 1982  the General Manager and other top Officials used to associate them selves with the sale of greeting cards to benefit the Canara Bank Relief and Welfare Society
It appears from the facts placed before us that the Canara Bank Relief and Welfare Society was formed and registered in the year 1961 at a time when the bank was a private bank
The bank was nationalised in 1969 and thereafter the bank ceased to have anything to do with the society  though out of a total membership of 2020 about 200 past and present employees of the bank only are now members of the society
Until 1982 one individual director of the bank used to be one of the several members of the Executive Committee of the Society  but the present position is that no member of the Executive Committee of the Society is an official of the bank
The only link of the bank with the society now is the name of the Society
The memorandum of association of the society was also placed before us and the objects of the society are wholly unconnected with the bank or its employees
The principal objects are to provide relief in case of calamities like flood  earthquake  fire  famine  epidemic  etc  to organise hospitals  maternity and child welfare centers  homes for the poor  sick  aged 759 and disabled  to make cash contributions to educational and other social welfare organisations  to undertake rural development programmes and so on
None of the objectives involves any special benefit or advantage to the employees of the bank
A great many details of the commendable work done by the society have been given to us in the several statements filed on behalf of the respondents
The petitioners  unfortunately  have needlessly dragged the society into the picture  making unworthy allegations
But even so when the writ petition was filed by the present petitioners in the Bombay High Court  the management of the bank realised that there may be some scope for abuse by some officials of the bank in the matter of selling greeting cards or raising funds for the society
They  therefore  made a statement before the Bombay High Court in the following terms The first respondent bank states that it has never at any time whatsoever compelled its employees to sell greeting cards or collect funds for the Canara Bank Relief and Welfare Society or any other institution  nor has the first respondent bank at any time considered the same as a relief factor for evaluating performance of its employees for promotion  nor shall the first respondent bank do so in future
 The High Court accepted the statement of the respondent bank and rejected the writ petition
The assurance given by the bank  as contained in the statement made by the bank before the  Bombay high Court  should have satisfied the petitioners if they had any genuine grievance that  in the past  officers of the bank had been forced to raise funds and sell greeting cards for the benefit of the society
But the petitioners were not willing to be easily satisfied
They filed the present special leave petition and the writ petition repeating the allegations made in the Bombay High Court and praying for the issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to forbear from using the bank officialsbank machinery bank resources for the purposes of collections of funds in the garb of any welfare organisation in general and in particular in the name of the various funds  details of which were set out in paragraph 22 of the writ petition 
After the statement filed by the bank in the High Court of Bombay  we are unable to find any justification whatsoever for the petitio 760 ners to pursue the matter by filing the present special leave petition and writ petition except to harrow the bank When we pointedly and repeatedly asked the learned counsel for the petitioners whether there was a single instance of a sale of greeting card or collection of funds by an official of the bank subsequent to the order of the Bombay High Court on October 21  1982  the learned counsel was unable to cite a single instance  but persisted in referring to the sale of greeting cards before the order of the Bombay High Court
Ultimately he had to admit that there was not a single instance of sale of greeting cards or collection of funds by officials of the bank subsequent to the order of the Bombay High Court
We have no hesitation in holding that the writ petition and the special leave petitioners both malicious and are designed to denigrate the management of the bank
Sri K N Bhatt  learned counsel for respondents 2to 4 assures us that the bank stands by the statement made before the Bombay High Court
We have  therefore  on hesitation in dismissing the writ petition and the special leave petition with costs which we quantify at Rs 10000 in each
But that is not an end of the matter
Right at the commencement  when the petitions came up for admission  the court came to be oppressed by the vast opportunity for abuse of financial power presented to Nationalised Banks and Financial Institutions of the Public Sector
There were indications in the writ petition itself which revealed that while the petitioners were indulging in rash and feckless allegations against the top echelons of the bank  on the other hand
they themselves were indulging in brash and reckless activities of the very nature of which they were complaining against the respondents
It appeared to the court that the petitioners  hands were unclean  and that they were by no means the champions of the oppressed  officers of the bank
There was one significant paragraph in the writ petition  which though meant to mislead the court  exposed them
In paragraph 12 of the writ petition  it was stated
That realising the importance of strict observance of legal and moral norms in bank business  the Central Government had issued the following directive 761 Immediate FNo69582  IR Government of India Ministry of Finance Department of Economic Affairs Banking Division New Delhi  the July 22  1982
Chairman  Indian Banks  Association  Bombay
Subject 
Bank officers  Association Trust Fund Collection of funds and creation of trust Dear Sir
I am directed to state that it has come to the notice if the Government that Bank Officers  Association has formed a Trust by name Bank Officers  Association Trust Fund  which is registered in 1981 under the Bombay Public Trust Act  1950 and it has also been granted exemption under section 80 G of Income Tax Act for donations made by assesses to the Fund
Apart from using bank s name which will have avoidable misgivings in the clientele  trust Fund has issued an appeal soliciting donations etc
from general public
We feel that even as members of the Association  the employees cannot collect funds from the public and the clients to the bank as it constitutes a clear misuse of their office
I am  therefore  to suggest that IBA may consider advising member banks to ensure that such trusts are not set up elsewhere
Kindly acknowledge receipt of the letter
Yours faithfully  Sd  Yashwant Raj  Under Secretary to the Government of India This directive has been flagrantly violated by the top management of the bank and personal aggrandizement of staggering proportions are being made at the cost of the 762 Bank and at the cost of the depositors money
 It was a blatant case of supprecssio veri and suggestio falsi The petitioners sought to imply and suggest that the directive of the Central Government was directed against the activities of the top management of the Bank in connection with the collection of funds for the Canara Bank Relief and Welfare Society  a society which was in existence years before the nationalisation of banks was thought of  whereas the truth was that the directive was a direct consequence of the complaints received against the activities of the petitioners in collecting funds for the Canara Bank Officers Association Trust Fund
The allegations in the petition and the reference in paragraph 12 to the  Bank Officers  Trust Fund provoked the court into a deeper probe as it was felt that the customer public was being exploited by some officers of the bank and the matter needed comment and required correction
Thereafter we made several orders from time to time calling for detailed information from both the parties about the activities of the Canara Bank Relief and Welfare Society and the Canara Bank Staff Officers
Association and the collections made from them and by them
The orders made by us are self explanatory and are worth extracting since they give a picture of the dilatory and recalcitrant attitude of the present petitioners
We propose to extract the orders in so far as they relate to the petitioners only  since we have already absolved the respondents
By our order dated January 17  1983  we directed  The petitioners are directed to give the following detailed information
There is a trust called Canara Bank Officers Association Trust Fund  which is alleged to have been formed on August 18  1981
The petitioners will have detailed information since the constitution of the Trust of its office bearers and their position in the Bank including the designation and salary as also if any emoluments in cash or kind is drawn from the Trust
The petitioners will also give detailed information of every contribution made to this Trust with reference to the party s name  his dealing with the bank as a customer and the amount contributed by the party to the trust and how the contributors were 763 persuaded to make the contributions and the motives for contribution  as also service received by each contributor from the bank  with reference to the branch
If there are withdrawals from the trust  the details should be furnished with the name of the person who has withdrawn the amount and where the money is at present kept or deposited and how the money was utilised
Withdrawal by cash or demand draft may be separately mentioned
By our order dated April 27  1983  we directed  By an order made by this Court on January 17  1983  this Court directed the petitioners to give the following information in respect of a Trust called Canara Bank Officers  Association Trust Fund
The information was to be given under the following heads 1
Names of the office bearers of the Trust since its inception
2 The position of each trustee in the organisation of the bank showing the designation  the place of work and salary drawn
Whether any salary or emolument of any kind return in cash or kind was drawn from the aforementioned Trust
If the answer to query 3 is in the affirmative the mode and method of payment
Name of each contributor to the Trust fund  the amount of contribution  relation of the contributor to the bank and whether at any point of time  the contributor had been using or enjoying the services of the bank especially from the branch in which the trustee was working and the contributor was connected to the branch
If the contributor is not connected with the bank organisation  the reasons and the motives for making contribution to such a trust the beneficiaries of which 764 are none other than the officers of Canara Bank 7
The service received by each contributor from the bank or its branch since making the contribution or since six months prior to the making of the contribution
Withdrawal from the Trust fund  if any made by whom in what amount on what date and for what purpose and whether the withdrawal was in cash  cheque or demand draft
The petitioners were called upon to furnish this information when the matter was taken up for hearing
Mr RK Garg  learned counsel for the petitioners read out the affidavit of Mr SA Kini dated February 18  1983
We also went through the accompaniments to the affidavit
We are satisfied that the petitioners have not given full details under every head and there is non compliance with the order of the Court
We direct the petitioners to fully comply with the order of this Court giving information under each of the separate head as set out here inn before except those where the information has already been supplied as an annexure to the afore mentioned affidavit In that case  the deponent shall state which annexure of the earlier affidavit complies with the Court s direction
This information must necessarily be supplied by July 17  1983 and the matter shall appear on board on July 25  1983
Both the parties including their officers  agents or nominees are injuncted from directly or indirectly recovering or manipulating to get any fund or contribution to the trust funds  one mentioned in our order and those other mentioned at page 16 of the writ petition hereafter
This will not come in the way of the association recovering the membership fee from the members who arc bonafide members and are on the staff of the bank  We direct accordingly  765 By our order dated August 30  1983  we again directed  Petitioner No 2  the Canara Bank Officers  Association shall give full detail of the donations collected by the said Association  commencing from 1970 till today
While giving the details of the donation  the Association shall specify the name of the donor not the branch from which the donation was received  the amount of donation  the full name and address of the parties giving donation  its relation with the bank  and also to specify the branch through which the parties were getting banking service and alteration and or modification of banking service or facilities granted since giving of the donation and which officers motivated persons to give donation to the Association as also the name and full address of the officer
If possible  the Association may state the motivation for the donation
The Canara Bank Officers  Association Trust shall give full details of the donation received from the public giving some details as hereinabove indicated as in the case of Canara Bank Officers  Association
Let it be noted that the details given till now are far from sufficient and are evasive in character
It must state whether a receipt is issued to each individual donor and whether counter foils are preserved  Finally  by our Order dated August 23  1984  we observed and directed By our detailed order dated April 27  1983  the petitioners were directed to give  amongst others  the following information in respect of Canara Bank Officers  Association Trust Fund  Trust  for short Name of each contributor to the Trust fund  the amount of contribution  relation of the contributor to the bank and whether at any point or time  the contributor had been using or enjoying the services of the bank especially from the branch in which the trustee was working and the contributor was connected to the branch 766 SA Kini  one of the petitioners  filed his affidavit to which was annexed a list showing the amount received from each individualfirmcompany
It is annexure IV at pages 126 163 of Volume l
It immediately transpired that there was a deliberate attempt at evading the court s order with a view to relevant information being not made available
The Court by its order dated August 30  1983  gave certain specific directions
Petitioners No2 was specifically directed to give further detail of the donations collected by the trust from 1970 till the date of the order
It was clarified so as to leave no one in doubt that the petitioners shall specify the name of the donor not branch from which donation was received  the amount of donation  the full name and address of the parties giving the donation and the relation  business commercial or other wise of the donor to the bank and to further specify the branch through which the donor parties were getting banking services and facilities from the Canara Bank
The petitioners were also directed to state whether there was any advantageous alteration or modification of the banking services or facilities granted to the donor since the donation as also to indicate and specify the name of each of the officers who were members of the Trust and who facilitated such alteration or modification advantageous to the customers in respect of banking facilities
The name of the officer and his full address was also directed to be stated
The petitioners were also directed  if possible  to state the motivation for the donation
There was noticeable reluctance on the part of the petitioners to implement this order or at any rate to avoid compliance with the same
On the last occasion  the Court directed the petitioners strictly comply with the aforementioned order
Yesterday when the matter came up for hearing  a statement running into about 24 pages not signed by any responsible person and not verified by an affidavit was 767 placed on record
We would be perfectly justified in ejecting this spurious document as unworthy of being looked into
Mr MK Ramamurthy repeatedly  though wholly unsuccessfully  tried to persuade us to hold that the state is in compliance with the orders of this Court
A mere glance at the statement would show that it is a futile repetition of a bizarre exercise which resulted in the statement Annexure IV volume I and by the information supplied by the statement we are in no way wiser
The purpose for calling upon the petitioners to submit the name of each donor was to identify the donor so that a detailed enquiry can be made as to how the officers of the Trust misusing are abusing their petition have procured donations by granting banking facilities to the donors
The additional purpose was also to ascertain whether the donors were coerced into making the so called donations at the instance of the officers of the Trust so that a detailed enquiry can be undertaken to ascertain the use and misuse and abuse of the office by the members of the Trust
The petitioners have been consistently striving to suppress this information from the court
This becomes evident from the fact that even the statement filed yesterday and marked as Volume VI the name of the donor is mentioned without the address or even the city in which the donor was residing or having his place of business
It is not stated what banking facilities the donors obtained since the donation and through which officer
Every covert or overt attempt is made to withhold the identity of the donor to thwart the court to reach the donor so that the shady of the members of the Trust in collecting the so called donations can be unearthed
Apart from the statement being barren  it is not supported by an affidavit and as it does not appear to have been signed by any responsible officer
We reject it as unworthy of any credence
The result is that till today there is non compliance with the aforementioned orders of the court
768 It was made specifically clear that the name of the donor and the address must be clearly specified
Even after long lapse of more than year and a half since the order  the information is branch wise which was categorically rejected by this Court
The specific instances which remains unexplained are pointed out by Mr KN Bhatt  learned advocate for the Canara Bank in his statement annexed to the letter dated August 22  1984
The statement is taken on record
We propose to give last opportunity to the petitioners to comply with the orders of this court in letter and spirit
ANY attempt at deviance or defiance will unquestionably land to serious consequences which we refrain from specifying at this stage
We record our utter disapproval of this hide and seek game of the petitioners and we want to leave no one in doubt that they do so was at their own peril
The arms of law are long and strong to reach them and no effort will be spared to unearth their illegal activities if once they are so established
It is not for a moment suggested that we so held
But this escapist attitude of the petitioners have raised strong suspicion in our minds that there is something improper  illegal and unbusiness like in their conduct disclosing either misuse or abuse of office by the officers of the  Canara Bank in collecting a huge amount as donation from the customers of the bank for the purpose of the trust
What is stated is just a warning
We direct that petitioners shall comply with the orders as hereinabove as indicated within a period of 6 weeks from today
The matter shall come up before this Bench after 6 weeks
 Pursuant to the last of our orders  the petitioners have filed some more statements  but even so the full information which we desired to have has not been furnished
The reason is fairly obvious and we consider it unnecessary to further dilate on this matter
From the information now available to us as a result of the several statements filed before us  it transpires that the Canara Bank Officers  Association was formed in the year 1971
On August 18  1981 the Association started the Canara Bank Officers  Association Trust Fund registering it as a Public Trust under the Bombay 769 Public Trust Act  1950
Five officers of the bank who were also office bearers of the Association were made life trustees of the Association Trust Fund Right from the date of formation of a Trust  donations were collected by the members of the Officers  Association from the customers of the bank
In the short span of about two years  the funds of the Trust have swelled to more than Rs twenty four lakhs
The so called donations range from sums in hundreds to thousands of rupees
The number of donors is also quite large
While one does appreciate that there must be several charitably inclined persons amongst the bank s customers  we do not have any doubt that most of the customers that gave donations to the Trust Fund must have felt obliged to do so because of favours received or expected to be received by them
Even if no coercive methods were employed by the members of the Association to collect donations  the customers must have felt morally pressurised that otherwise their interests would not be properly taken care of or would be jeopardised or neglected by the officers with whom they were compelled to deal in the course of their business
Very shortly after the formation of the Trust Fund  complaints began pouring in against the collection of funds for the Association Trust Fund by the officers of the bank
The All India Bank Depositors  Association complained to the Central Minister incharge of banking as follows  We are receiving complaints that some bank employees are pressurising customers for donations for various activities which have nothing to do with the bank as such
For instance these funds are demanded for conferences  for helping the family of deceased employees  etc
Where customers fail to respond  they begin to face problems and difficulties in their banking transactions
You are aware of the hostile public attitude towards bank employees and the costs imposed on the economy as a result of poor service and frequent disruption of work
Without allowing the situation to deteriorate further the public expect the Government to take remedial steps
This is an opportunity for the Government to prove that it is responsive to public criticism  770 The Management of the Canara Bank also received numerous complaints
Feeling rightly disturbed by the complaints received  the Management called upon the Association to furnish particulars of the collections made by the officers and sent the following telex message to the Association This is with reference to the Canara Bank officers Association Trust Fund formed by the association for which an appeal also has been issued to the public for donations
We also learn that funds are being collected from the bank s clients as was from the public and the  staff by way of donations and coupons
Usage of the name of Canara Bank for a Trust of such type has led to the impression amongst our clients that the bank is also having a role and interest in this Trust
Apart from other reasons we are afraid that the usage of the bank s I name in a Trust which is not formed by the bank besides creating complications may become a bad precedent for some others to form similar trusts
While we have no objection for your collecting funds from our own officers we request you not to collect funds from customers and the public
We also request you to kindly furnish to us the particulars of collections already made by you from the bank s clients and from the public as we intend referring the matter to our Board at its next meeting and the Ministry for their consideration
 The Board of Directors discussed the matter and confirmed the action of the bank
They also looked with disfavor on the collection of funds from customers by the Association
They desired the bank to convey the information to the Ministry for appropriate action and follow up measures
Thereupon the Bank addressed a detailed letter to the Government of India seeking guidance after setting forth the objects of the Trust  etc
and the action taken by them till then
The response of the Government was immediate  and categoric
The Government said Please refer to your letter No IRSl 2220
TPM dated 18 61982 regarding Canara Bank Officers  Association Trust Fund
We would request you to pursue this matter seriously
Even as members of the Association the 771 employees cannot solicit funds from the public
This is clearly a misuse of their office
We would like to be informed of the further developments in the matter
 In addition to writing to the Chairman of the bank as aforesaid  the Government also wrote to the Chairman  Indian Banks  Association  Bombay a letter which was extracted in paragraph 12 of the writ petition and which has also been quoted by us earlier
In turn the Indian Bank s Association addressed the Chief Executives of all public sector Banks and told them In one of the member banks in the public sector the officers  Association had formed a trust and taken exemption under section 80 G of the Income Tax Act for receiving donations to the fund
On the question of the propriety of creating such trusts and collecting funds from the public  the Government is of the view that it would constitute a clear misuse of their office by the employees
We have been requested by the Government to advise all public sector banks to ensure that such trusts are not set up
We reproduce overleaf a copy of the communication received by us from the Banking Division for your information and necessary action
 It is clear from what has been stated above that the writ petition in this Court and the writ petition filed in the Bombay High Court which led upto the special leave petition are retaliatory actions consequent on the displeasure expressed by the Management and  on account of the Management  by the Board of Directors and the Central Government
We are of the firm opinion that no employee of a nationalised Bank or any  other Public Sector Corporation should engage himself in collecting donations  for any trust or other organisations from persons with whom he comes into contact in the course of his employment
It is not desirable
It is likely to lead to unhealthy practices and harmful results  intended or unintended
In the world of commerce  quid pro quo and not charity is the rule
Those in a position of advantage by reason of their office have to be very wary
Otherwise  they may unsuspectingly walk into traps
That is why the Central Civil Services Conduct Rules  1964  for example  provide that no Government servant shall 772 except with the previous sanctions of the Government or of prescribed authority  ask for or accept contributions to  or otherwise associate himself with raising of any funds or other collections in cash or in kind in pursuance of any object whatsoever
Rule 12
It is a rule of prudence
It is a rule of commonsense
it is born of wisdom gained by experience
We fully endorse the raison d etre behind the rule
We also endorse what has been said by the bank in its telex message to the officers  Association  by the Government in its letters to the bank and to the Indian Banks  Association and by the Indian Banks  Association to the Chief Executives of all Public Sector Banks  all of which we have extracted earlier in this judgment
The question  therefore  is what has to be done with the Canara Bank Officers  Association Trust Fund
First  an injunction on the same lines as that which was in force during the pendency of the writ petition in this Court shall issue  that is  the officers of the Canara Bank  their agents or nominees are restrained from directly or indirectly recovering or manipulating to get any fund or contribution to the Trust Fund
Second  no officer of the Canara Bank shall be permitted to hold the office of life trustee  trustee or any other office of the Canara Bank Officers  Association Trust Fund
Third  the Union of India  who has been impleaded as a party shall be entitled to nominate five trustees who are not connected with the Canara Bank to administer the Canara Bank Officers  Association Trust Fund
Fourth  the trustees nominated by the Union of India shall administer the Trust Fund in accordance with the provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act and the deed of trust by which the Canara Bank Officers  Association Trust Fund was created
Fifth  the trustees appointed by the Union of India shall hold office until appropriate arrangements are made by the Charity Commissioner  Maharashtra on an application to be moved by the Central Government within six months from today
Sixth  there shall be an enquiry by the CBI into the conduct of the five trustees in relation to the Trust Fund and such further action as may be necessary may be taken by the CBI
Any further direction which may be necessary may be sought from the High Court of Bombay
MLA Petitions dismissed


Summary:
The petitioners  Deputy General Secretary of the Canara Bank Officers  Association and the Canara Bank Officers  Association
filed a writ petition in the High Court alleging that the Chairman and Managing Director  the General Manager and the top officials of the Management of Canara Bank have been using their official position and authority to coerce the officers and staff of the Canara Bank to collect funds for the Canara Bank Relief and Welfare Society and the Kamakoti Prabha Trust and one of the principal modes of collecting funds was the sale of greeting cards by the officials of the bank to their customers
They also alleged that officers  who protested against the directive to sell greeting cards  were victimised by the bank  and officers  who were highly successful card sellers  were given accelerated promotion over the heads of seniors
The respondent Bank made a statement before the High Court that it has never at any time whatsoever compelled its employees to sell greeting cards or collect funds for the Canara Bank Relief and Welfare Society or any other institution nor has the first respondent bank at any time considered the same as a relief factor for evaluating performance of its employees for promotion nor shall the first respondent bank do so in future
 The High Court accepted the statement of the respondent bank and dismissed the writ petition
But  the petitioners were not satisfied with the assurance given by the respondent bank and filed the present special leave petition and the writ petition repeating the same allegations and praying for the issue of a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to forbear from using the bank officialsbank machinery bankresources for the purpose of collections of funds in the garb of any welfare organisation
755 While dismissing the petition and the special leave petition as malicious and as designed to denigrate the management of the bank  it was found by the Court during the course of the hearing that the petitioners themselves were indulging in rash and feckless activities of the very nature of which they were complaining against the respondents
Pursuant to several orders made by the Court from time to time calling for detailed information from both the parties about the activities of the Canara Bank Relief and Welfare Society and the Canara Bank Staff Officers  Association and the collections made for them and by them  it transpired that the Canara Bank Officers  Association was formed in the year 1971
On August 18  1981 the Association started the Canara Bank Officers  Association Trust Fund registering it as a Public Trust under the Bombay Public Trust Act  1950
Five officers of the bank who were also office bearers of the Association were made life trustees of the Association Trust Fund
Right from the date of formation of the Trust  donations were collected by the members of the Officers  Association from the customers of the bank
In the short span of about two years  the funds of the Trust have swelled to more than Rs twenty four lakhs
The so called donations range from sums in hundreds to thousands of rupees
The number of donors is also quite large  HELD 11 While one does appreciate that there must be several charitable inclined persons amongst the bank s customers  there is no doubt that most of the customers that gave donations to the Trust Fund must have felt obliged to do so because of favour received or expected to be received by them
Even if no coercive methods were employed by the members of the Association to collect donations  the customers must have felt morally pressurized that otherwise their interests would not be properly taken care of or would be jeopardised or neglected by the officers with whom they were compelled to deal in the course of their business
769C D 12 No employee of a nationalised bank or any other Public Sector Corporation should engage himself in collecting donations  for any trust or other organisation from persons with whom he comes into contact in the course of his employment
It is not desirable
It is likely to lead to unhealthy practices and harmful results  intended or unintended
In the world of commerce  quid pro quo and not charity is the rule  Those in a position of advantage by reason of their office have to be very wary
Otherwise  they may unsuspectingly walk into traps
That is why the Central Civil Services Conduct Rules  1964  for example  provide that no Government servant shall  except with the previous sanction of the Government or of prescribed authority  ask for or accept contributions to  or otherwise associate himself with raising of any funds or other collections in cash or in kind in pursuance of any object whatsoever Rule 12
It is a rule of prudence It is a rule of common sense
It is born of wisdom gained by experience
771G H 772A B 2
The question  therefore  is what was to be done with the Canara Bank Officers  Association Trust Fund First  an injunction on the same lines as that which was in force during the pendency of the writ petition in this Court shall issue  that is  the officers of the Canara Bank  their agents nominees are restrai 756 ned from directly or indirectly recovering or manipulating to get any fund or contribution to the Trust Fund
Second  no officer of the Canara Bank shall be permitted to hold the office of life trustee  trustee or any other office of the Canara Bank Officers  Association Trust Fund
Third  the Union of India  who has been impleaded as a party shall be entitled to nominate five trustees who are not connected with the Canara Bank to administer the Canara Bank Officers  Association Trust Fund
Fourth  the trustees nominated by the Union of India shall administer the Trust Fund in accordance with the provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act and the deed of trust by which the Canara Bank Officers  Association Trust Fund was created
fifth  the trustees appointed by the Union of India shall hold office until appropriate arrangements are made by the Charity Commissioner  Maharashtra on an application to be moved by the Central Government within six months from today
Sixth  there shall be an inquiry by the CBI into the conduct of the five life trustees in relation to the Trust Fund and such further action as may be necessary may be taken by the CBI
Any further direction which may be necessary may be sought from the High Court of Bombay
772D G