Anandi Mukta Sadguru Shree Mukta ... vs V.R. Rudani & Ors on 21 April, 1989
In Federal Bank
Limited ?Vs- Sagar Thomas, (2003) 10 SCC 733, the Supreme Court explained and
distinguished the decision in Anadi Mukt case (cited supra). In that case,
the 1st respondent who was working as a Branch Manager in the appellant Bank
was charge sheeted and ultimately awarded punishment of dismissal. The 1st
respondent challenged his dismissal by filing a writ petition before the High
Court. A preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petition
was taken by the appellant Bank saying that it is a private bank and not a
State or its agency or instrumentality within the meaning of Article 12 of
the Constitution, hence, a writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution was not maintainable against it. The learned single Judge,
however, found that the Federal Bank performs a public duty, and as such it
comes under the definition of other authority within the meaning of Article
226, and as such the writ petition was maintainable. Aggrieved by the
aforesaid judgment of the learned single Judge, the appellant preferred a
writ appeal. The said writ appeal was dismissed providing that the learned
single Judge shall decide the writ petition on merits. The question which
fell for consideration before the Supreme Court on appeal was as to whether
the appellant Bank is a private body or falls within the definition of the
State or local or other authorities under the control of the Government
within the meaning of Article 226. Allowing the appeal, the Court held that a
private company carrying on banking business as a Scheduled Bank cannot be
termed as an institution or a company carrying on any statutory or public
duty. Mere regulatory provisions to ensure that commercial activity carried
on by private bodies work within a discipline, neither confer any status upon
the company nor put any obligation upon it which may be enforced through
issuance of a writ under Article 226. It was merely a case of disciplinary
action being taken against its employee by the appellant Bank. The respondent
was not trying to enforce any statutory duty on the part of the Bank. The
termination of service, therefore, cannot be challenged by the respondent by
filing a writ petition under Article 226.