Madhya Pradesh High Court
M.P. State Co-Operative Bank Ltd. vs Vineet Kumar Dubey on 18 June, 2013
W.A.No.936/2009
M.P. State Co-operative Bank Ltd.
Vs
Vineet Kumar Dubey and others
18/06/2013
Shri Ranveer Singh, Advocate for the appellant.
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.
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 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.
(Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Subhash Kakade)
Acting Chief Justice Judge
SJ/-