(A) Service Law – Disciplinary Authority and Appellate authority is same – MD who is Disciplinary Authority is also Member of Board who heard appeal – If entire proceedings vitiated – Plea rejected – Held: there is nothing on record that the Managing Director of the bank was member of the Board meeting at the time of hearing of appeal of the petitioner. The Managing Director is the Chief Executive Officer of the bank and he is an ex-officio member of the Board by virtue of his designation. The decision of the Board cannot be thus said to have been vitiated merely because its conveyance was under the signature of the Managing Director. (Para 9, 23)
(B) Service Law – Dismissal – Cooperative Bank – Plea that permission from registrar is required for imposing major penalty – Plea rejected – Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show any provision of the bye-laws of the Bank wherein it has been mandated to seek prior permission of the Registrar before imposition of major penalty on the officer of Grade-IV or Grade-III under Rule 55 of the rules ibid. The argument raised on behalf of the petitioner fails as there was no mandatory requirement of seeking prior permission of the Registrar before imposition of major penalty upon the petitioner. (Plea 8, 21, 22)
(C) Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 – Maintainability of Writ – Cooperative Bank – Plea that the Himachal Pradesh Cooperative Bank was not a state or other authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and also that the remedy of writ was not available against the Bank. Plea rejected – Held: Even if the Bank was held to be not a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, the High Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution was held jurisdiction to issue a writ or order in nature of writ even against any person or authority, if the fact situation of the case warranted. It has further been held that the writ can lie even against the co-operative authorities, however, its maintainability would depend on the facts of each case. It cannot be said that the writ against the Bank will not be maintainable in any circumstance. (Para 9, 15)
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
2023 STPL(Web) 217 HP
[2023:HHC:11353]
Suresh Kaushal Vs. State Of H.P. & Others
CWP No. 4031 of 2021-Decided on 28-9-2023
https://stpllaw.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/2023-STPLWeb-217-HP.pdf
