Supreme Court of India
Reserve Bank Of India And Anr. vs S. Jayarajan on 11 November, 1992
Equivalent citations: 1992LABLC286, (1996)IILLJ735SC, 1995SUPP(4)SCC584, AIRONLINE 1992 SC 68, 1996 SCC (L&S) 203, (1996) 2 LAB LJ 735, (1996) 32 ATC 145, 1995 SCC (SUPP) 4 584
Author: S.C. Agrawal
Bench: S.C. Agrawal
ORDER Mr. S.C. Agrawal, J.
1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Karnataka dated December 17, 1981 in Writ Petition No. 4091 of 1980 filed by the respondent wherein he challenged the validity of the order dated February 9, 1990 terminating his services. The said order for termination of services of the respondent was passed under Regulation 25(2) of the Reserve Bank of India (Staff) Regulations, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations) which provides as under:
25.(1) xxx xxx xxx (2) Subject to the provisions of Regulation 22 the Bank may determine the service of any employee on giving him.
(a) three months' notice or pay in lieu thereof if he is an employee in Class I and
(b) One month's notice or pay in lieu thereof if he is an employee in any other class.
The power to determine the service of an employee shall be exercised by the Governor with the prior approval of the Central Board in the case of an officer and by the manager with the prior approval of the Governor in the case of other employees.
2. The High Court has held that Regulation 25(2) was violative of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution and on that view the order for termination of services of the respondent was set aside.
3. Shri B.S. Parihar, learned Counsel for the appellants has submitted that the High Court was in error in proceeding on the basis that the regulations have been framed under Section 58 of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 and are statutory in nature. The learned Counsel submits that the Regulations are administrative in character and have been framed under Section 7 of the said Act. In this connection he has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in V.T. Khanzode v. Reserve Bank of India 1982-1-LLJ-465.
4. It is no doubt true that in V.T. Khanzode v. Reserve Bank of India (supra) it has been held that the Regulations are in the nature of administrative directions issued under Section 7(2) and not under Section 58 of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934. But that does not in our opinion make any difference. The mandate of Articles 14 and 16 applies to statutory regulations as well as administrative instructions issued by the State, as defined in Article 12. It is not disputed that Reserve Bank of India is State under Article 12. The High Court has found that Regulation 25(2) is violative of the provisions of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution. This view of the High Court is in consonance with the decision of this Court in Delhi Transport Corporation, v. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress 1991-I-LLJ-395 wherein Regulation 9(b) of Delhi Road Transport Authority (Conditions of Appointment and Services) Regulations, 1952 was struck down as being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The provisions contained in Regulation 25(2) are similar to those contained in Regulation 9(b) which has been struck down in the Delhi Transport Corporation case (supra). The present case is thus fully covered by the aforesaid decision in the Delhi Transport Corporation case (supra).
5. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed but with no orders as to costs.