Gwalior District Co-Operatlve Central
Bank Ltd. Gwalior Vs. Ramesh Chandra Mangal & Ors [1984] INSC 176 (26
September 1984)
CHANDRACHUD, Y.V. ((CJ) CHANDRACHUD, Y.V.
((CJ) DESAI, D.A.
THAKKAR, M.P. (J)
CITATION: 1985 AIR 337 1985 SCR (1) 856 1984
SCC Supl. 528 1984 SCALE (2)768
ACT:
Administrative Law-Madhya Pradesh Cooperative
Societies Act 1960 s. 53 (4)-Delegation of power-Power conferred upon Apex bank
by Registrar of Cooperative Societies-Whether Apex Bank could re-delegate such
power in some other authority- Held: No. The Apex Bank had no power to
re-delegate its authority.
HEADNOTE:
The Board of Directors of the appellant bank
was superseded by the Registrar of the Cooperative Societies and its powers
were vested in the M.P. State Cooperative Bank which is an Apex Bank as
"officer-in-charge" of the superseded bank. The Apex Bank appointed
one S.P. Jain as the Chief Executive officer of the appellant bank.
Respondent No. 1, an employee of the
appellant bank, was dismissed from service by S.P. Jain on the ground that he
had overstayed the leave granted to him. The Dy.
Registrar of Cooperative Societies set aside
the said order of dismissal and directed reinstatement of respondent No. 1, but
it was reversed by the Addl. Registrar in appeal by the appellant Bank. In
further appeal by Respondent No. 1 the Board of Revenue set aside the order of
termination. The High Court in the Writ Petition filed by appellant-Bank agreed
with the Board of Revenue and also ordered reinstatement of Respondent No. 1.
Dismissing the appeal by the appellant-Bank
and modifying the order of the High Court,
HELD: The Apex Bank had no authority or power
so to appoint S.P. Jain for two reasons: In the first place, the Apex Bank,
being an appointee of the Registrar, had no authority to divest itself of the
power conferred upon it by the Registrar and to invest S.P. Jain with that
power. The only authority which could have conferred the necessary power on
S.P. Jain was the Registrar. The Registrar did not confer that power upon S.P.
Jain under section 53 (4) of the Act. Therefore the said order had no existence
in the eye of law. [858D-E] 857
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal
No. 996 of 1979 From the Judgment and Order dated 26.10.78 of the Madhya
Pradesh High Court in Misc. Petition No. 176/74.
S.N. Kacker, S.K. Ghambir and Ashok Mahajan
for the appellant.
T.U. Mehta, S.S. Khanduja, R.D. Jain, Mehfooz
Khan and Yashpal Dhingra for the respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
CHANDRACHUD, C.J. Respondent 1 was appointed as an Agent of the appellant-Bank,
which is a co-operative society registered under and governed by the provisions
of the Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act. 1970. By an order dated June
5, 1968 passed by one S.P. Jain, the services of respondent 1 were terminated
on the ground that he had over- stayed the leave granted to him.
Aggrieved by that order, respondent 1 raised
a dispute under section SS(2) of the Act, before the Registrar of the
Co-operative Societies. The Registrar referred the matter to the Deputy
Register, who by an order dated February 27, 1972, allowed the claim of
respondent 1 on the ground that the order terminating the services was not in
accordance with Rules 44 and 45 of Co-operative Bank Employees Service Rules.
He also ordered the reinstatement of respondent 1 with full back salary and
allowances. In an appeal filed by the Bank, the Addl. Registrar took the view
that the only remedy which was open to respondent 1 was to claim damages for
wrongful termination of his services and that, therefore, he could not be
reinstated in service Respondent 1 than filed an appeal before the Board of
Revenue which held by an order dated August 28, 1974, that, S.P. Jain who held
the enquiry against respondent 1 and passed the order terminating his services
had no power to do so. The Board of Revenue set aside the order of termination
and remanded the matter to the Bank for disposal in accordance with law. The
writ petition filed by the Bank in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh was
dismissed on October 26, 1973. According to the High Court, since S. P. Jain
had no authority to hold the enquiry or to pass the impugned order of
dismissal, the said order had no existence in the eye of law and, 858
therefore, respondent 1 should be deemed to be in service and be reinstated.
Aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court the Bank has filed this appeal.
We are in agreement with the conclusion to
which the High Court has come, though for somewhat different reasons which are
as follows:- "The Board of Directors of the appellant-Bank was superseded
by the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies by an order dated July 25, 1967
and its powers were vested in Madhya Pradesh State Cooperative Bank, Jabalpur,
which is an Apex Bank, as "officer-in- charge" of the superseded
Bank. By Resolution No. 23 dated May 19, 1968, the Apex Bank confirmed the
action of its Chairman/Vice Chairman in deputing, amongst others S.P. Jain as
the Chief Executive officer of the superseded Bank. The Apex Bank had no authority
or power so to appoint S.P. Jain for two reasons: In the first place, the Apex
Bank, being an appointee of the Registrar, had no authority to divest itself of
the power conferred upon it by the Registrar and to invest S.P. Jain with that
power. The only authority which could have conferred the necessary power. On
S.P. Jain was the Registrar. The Registrar did not confer that power upon S.P.
Jain under Section 53(4) of the Act".
In the result, this appeal is dismissed with
costs.
We would like to add that as long as 16 years
have passed since the impugned order was passed and that too by a person who
had no authority to pass it. Secondly, the consensus of opinion of the various
authorities which have dealt with this matter is that, in overstaying the leave
granted to him, respondent l was not guilty of "misconduct".
It is desirable and prudent that no further
proceedings be taken against respondent 1 for the alleged default on his part,
which is the subject-matter of the present proceedings.
We modify the order of the High Court by
directing that respondent l will be entitled to fifty per cent of the , back
wages and i allowances only from June 5, 1968 until September 30, 1984. The
appellant will back respondent 1 in its service with effect from October 1,
1984.
M.L.A. Appeal dismissed.
Back