Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3
PETITIONER:
GWALIOR DISTRICT CO-OPERATlVE CENTRAL BANK LTD. GWALIOR
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
RAMESH CHANDRA MANGAL AND ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT26/09/1984
BENCH:
CHANDRACHUD, Y.V. ((CJ)
BENCH:
CHANDRACHUD, Y.V. ((CJ)
DESAI, D.A.
THAKKAR, M.P. (J)
CITATION:
1985 AIR 337 1985 SCR (1) 856
1984 SCC Supl. 528 1984 SCALE (2)768
ACT:
Administrative Law-Madhya Pradesh Cooperative Societies
Act 1960 s. 53 (4)-Delegation of power-Power conferred upon
Apex bank by Registrar of Cooperative Societies-Whether Apex
Bank could re-delegate such power in some other authority-
Held: No. The Apex Bank had no power to re-delegate its
authority.
HEADNOTE:
The Board of Directors of the appellant bank was
superseded by the Registrar of the Cooperative Societies and
its powers were vested in the M.P. State Cooperative Bank
which is an Apex Bank as "officer-in-charge" of the
superseded bank. The Apex Bank appointed one S.P. Jain as
the Chief Executive officer of the appellant bank.
Respondent No. 1, an employee of the appellant bank,
was dismissed from service by S.P. Jain on the ground that
he had overstayed the leave granted to him. The Dy.
Registrar of Cooperative Societies set aside the said order
of dismissal and directed reinstatement of respondent No. 1,
but it was reversed by the Addl. Registrar in appeal by the
appellant Bank. In further appeal by Respondent No. 1 the
Board of Revenue set aside the order of termination. The
High Court in the Writ Petition filed by appellant-Bank
agreed with the Board of Revenue and also ordered
reinstatement of Respondent No. 1.
Dismissing the appeal by the appellant-Bank and
modifying the order of the High Court,
^
HELD: The Apex Bank had no authority or power so to
appoint S.P. Jain for two reasons: In the first place, the
Apex Bank, being an appointee of the Registrar, had no
authority to divest itself of the power conferred upon it by
the Registrar and to invest S.P. Jain with that power. The
only authority which could have conferred the necessary
power on S.P. Jain was the Registrar. The Registrar did not
confer that power upon S.P. Jain under section 53 (4) of the
Act. Therefore the said order had no existence in the eye of
law. [858D-E]
857
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 996 of
1979
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.10.78 of the
Madhya Pradesh High Court in Misc. Petition No. 176/74.
S.N. Kacker, S.K. Ghambir and Ashok Mahajan for the
appellant.
T.U. Mehta, S.S. Khanduja, R.D. Jain, Mehfooz Khan and
Yashpal Dhingra for the respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
CHANDRACHUD, C.J. Respondent 1 was appointed as an
Agent of the appellant-Bank, which is a co-operative society
registered under and governed by the provisions of the
Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act. 1970. By an order
dated June 5, 1968 passed by one S.P. Jain, the services of
respondent 1 were terminated on the ground that he had over-
stayed the leave granted to him.
Aggrieved by that order, respondent 1 raised a dispute
under section SS(2) of the Act, before the Registrar of the
Co-operative Societies. The Registrar referred the matter to
the Deputy Register, who by an order dated February 27,
1972, allowed the claim of respondent 1 on the ground that
the order terminating the services was not in accordance
with Rules 44 and 45 of Co-operative Bank Employees Service
Rules. He also ordered the reinstatement of respondent 1
with full back salary and allowances. In an appeal filed by
the Bank, the Addl. Registrar took the view that the only
remedy which was open to respondent 1 was to claim damages
for wrongful termination of his services and that,
therefore, he could not be reinstated in service Respondent
1 than filed an appeal before the Board of Revenue which
held by an order dated August 28, 1974, that, S.P. Jain who
held the enquiry against respondent 1 and passed the order
terminating his services had no power to do so. The Board of
Revenue set aside the order of termination and remanded the
matter to the Bank for disposal in accordance with law. The
writ petition filed by the Bank in the High Court of Madhya
Pradesh was dismissed on October 26, 1973. According to the
High Court, since S. P. Jain had no authority to hold the
enquiry or to pass the impugned order of dismissal, the said
order had no existence in the eye of law and,
858
therefore, respondent 1 should be deemed to be in service
and be reinstated. Aggrieved by the judgment of the High
Court the Bank has filed this appeal.
We are in agreement with the conclusion to which the
High Court has come, though for somewhat different reasons
which are as follows:-
"The Board of Directors of the appellant-Bank was
superseded by the Registrar of the Co-operative
Societies by an order dated July 25, 1967 and its
powers were vested in Madhya Pradesh State Cooperative
Bank, Jabalpur, which is an Apex Bank, as "officer-in-
charge" of the superseded Bank. By Resolution No. 23
dated May 19, 1968, the Apex Bank confirmed the action
of its Chairman/Vice Chairman in deputing, amongst
others S.P. Jain as the Chief Executive officer of the
superseded Bank. The Apex Bank had no authority or
power so to appoint S.P. Jain for two reasons: In the
first place, the Apex Bank, being an appointee of the
Registrar, had no authority to divest itself of the
power conferred upon it by the Registrar and to invest
S.P. Jain with that power. The only authority which
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3
could have conferred the necessary power. On S.P. Jain
was the Registrar. The Registrar did not confer that
power upon S.P. Jain under Section 53(4) of the Act".
In the result, this appeal is dismissed with costs.
We would like to add that as long as 16 years have
passed since the impugned order was passed and that too by a
person who had no authority to pass it. Secondly, the
consensus of opinion of the various authorities which have
dealt with this matter is that, in overstaying the leave
granted to him, respondent l was not guilty of "misconduct".
It is desirable and prudent that no further proceedings be
taken against respondent 1 for the alleged default on his
part, which is the subject-matter of the present
proceedings.
We modify the order of the High Court by directing that
respondent l will be entitled to fifty per cent of the ,
back wages and i allowances only from June 5, 1968 until
September 30, 1984. The appellant will back respondent 1 in
its service with effect from October 1, 1984.
M.L.A. Appeal dismissed.
859