Madhya Pradesh High Court
M.P.State Co-Operative Bank Ltd. vs K.C.Sharma on 14 August, 2013
1
W.A. No.841/2009
M.P. State Co-operative Bank Ltd. K.C.Sharma & others
14.8.2013
Shri Amit Khatri, Counsel for appellant.
Shri Vinod Kumar Dubey, Counsel for respondent No.1.
This appeal is directed against an order dated 31.7.2009 in W.P.No.9224/2008 by which learned Single Judge has disposed of the matter in light of the decision of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos.4481/2007, 4482/2007 and 4483/2007 dated 25.9.2007.
It is submitted by the respondents that thereafter another matter was heard and decided by this Court in Writ Appeal No.936/2009- M.P.State Co-operative bank Ltd. Vs. Vineet Kumar Dubey and others on 18.6.2013 and the said writ appeal was dismissed by this Court after considering merits of the case. It is submitted by the respondents that the present appeal is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in W.A.No.936/2009.
Learned counsel for appellant though has opposed the aforesaid contention and sought time to seek instructions, but we are not inclined to adjourn hearing of this case because on last date of hearing similar contention was made by the respondents and record of W.A.No.936/2009 was directed to be made available before this Court and it is court-dated case fixed for today i.e. 14.8.2013. In view of the aforesaid, prayer of appellant is declined.
In Vineet Kumar Dubey (supra), the Division Bench of this Court considering the similar controversy held thus:-
"This appeal is directed against the order dated 31.07.2009 passed by the writ Court in W.P.No.2818/2008, by which, writ petition preferred by the respondents for quashment of their termination orders was allowed and the respondents were directed to be reinstated along with all consequential benefits.2 W.A. No.841/2009
M.P. State Co-operative Bank Ltd. K.C.Sharma & others 14.8.2013 The facts of the case are that the respondents were the permanent duly confirmed employees of the Bank and were working on the post of Clerk-cum- Typist Grade-II. Without serving any notice or extending an opportunity of hearing, even the procedure prescribed under the service Rules was not followed, their services were terminated merely on the basis of the recommendations of the Lokayukt, who had conducted some inquiry into allegation that appointment of the respondents was not in accordance with rules. The Lokayukt had made recommendations on 28.01.1997 to the Registrar, Cooperative Societies to the effect that the service of such employees deserves to be terminated. The Registrar in pursuant to such recommendations had issued an order dated 01.08.1997 directing the Managing Director of the Appellant - Bank to terminate the services of the respondents and accordingly, the services were terminated vide order dated 27.10.1997. This order was under challenge before the writ Court and the writ Court considering the fact the similar question was the subject matter in W.P.No.1421/2005, by which, similar order was quashed and an SLP preferred against such order was also dismissed by the Apex Court vide order dated 25.09.2007. Learned Single Judge relying on the aforesaid decision has quashed the impugned order of termination of services of respondents. This order is under challenge in this appeal.
In the appeal, it has been raised that such an order was challenged after a lapse of near about four years and there was no explanation on the part of the respondents for such delay. It is also stated that some of the employees had not produced the termination orders before the writ Court, but inspite of that, such orders were quashed.
From the perusal of the record, we find that firstly, the aforesaid objections were not raised before the writ Court, apart from this, the writ Court has considered the termination order dated 27.10.1997 in the matter, which was similar in respect of the respondents. Merely because some of the employees have not produced the termination orders before the writ Court, would not affect the merits of the case, because the termination order was not in dispute. The services of the respondents were terminated merely 3 W.A. No.841/2009 M.P. State Co-operative Bank Ltd. K.C.Sharma & others 14.8.2013 on the basis of the recommendations of the Lokayukt and consequently the order was issued by the Registrar. When the respondents were the permanent employees of the appellant - Bank, before terminating their services, it was necessary on the part of the appellant - Bank to issue a show cause notice, afford an opportunity of hearing and to terminate their services after following the procedure prescribed under the rules. In the present case, such requirements were not followed and it appears that because of the letter issued by the Lokayukt, services of all the employees were terminated. Learned Single Judge after considering all the aforesaid aspects and the order of the Apex Court in identical matter has rightly quashed the termination order, in which, we do not find any error warranting interference in this appeal. This appeal being without any merits, is hereby dismissed without any order as to costs."
As controversy involved in the present case has already been considered and decided by a detailed order in Vineet Kumar Dubey (supra), we do not find any merit in this appeal. This appeal is also disposed of finally in view of the order passed in Vineet Kumar Dubey (supra).
No order as to costs.
(Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Subhash Kakade)
Acting Chief Justice Judge
C.