DELHI STATE COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED Vs. JAGDISH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts giving rise to this petition are that Jagdish Singh, hereinafter referred to as respondent No. 1 was employed by Delhi State Cooperative Bank Ltd., here in after referred to as the petitioner bank for the first time in 1962. A few months after his appointment in the bank, he was granted emergency commission in the Indian Army. After serving for about five years he was released from the army in 1967 and he rejoined his duties with the petitioner bank. The period of service spent by the respondent No. 1 in the army was counted towards the service of respondent No. 1 in the bank as he had the lien on his post in the bank. He was promoted as the Executive Officer in 1967 and Manager Grade I in 1969. He was appointed as the acting General Manager of the Bank by the then Administrator of the bank in December, 1977 and he continued to officiate as Acting General Manager till 23rd March, 1980. Respondent No. 1 was given the substantive rank of Deputy General Manager in the petitioner bank vide order dated 2.2.80 by the then Adminstrator of the petitioner bank. Respondent No. 1 however, continued to act as the Deputy General Manager.

(2.) Elections were held on 31.3.1975 for electing the managing committee of the petitioner bank and respondents 6 to 21 were elected as the Directors of the Board of Directors of the petitioner bank. Certain persons filed writ petitions in this court challenging the validity of the election of the managing Committee of the petitioner bank held on 31.3.1975. The writ petitions were withdrawn on 11.2.1980. Respondents 6 to 21 took the charge of Board of Directors on 23.2.1980. Shri Dalip Singh was appointed as its honorary Secretary on 23.2.80. The respondent No.1 was suspended on 17-12-1980. An Establishment Sub Committee of the Board of Directors of the petitioner bank was constituted on December 18,1980 by the Board of Directors. Shri Jagdish Singh respondent No. 1 was informed that the Establishment Sub Committee of the Board of Directors had in its meeting held on 20.12.80 cancelled his appointment as Deputy General Manager and he was ordered to be reverted to the post of Manger Grade 1. On 29.12.1980 he was served with a charge sheet and was called upon to reply to the charges contained in it. An enquiry officer was also appointed to enquire into the charges who submitted his report and he was informed on 27.1.81 that his services were terminated as a result of the disciplinary proceedings with immediate effect . Respondent No. 1 filed an appeal before the Board of Directors but he was informed on 173.81 that his appeal was considered and was rejected by the managing committee.

(3.) The case of respondent No. 1 was that there was no competent Board of Directors at all material times. According to him out of 16 directors elected ten had ceased to be the directors of the Board of Directors under Rule 59,60,63 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Rules 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). Shri Dalip Singh had vacated his seat under Rule 63. Further Jai Narain was defaulter to the tune of Rs. 10,000.00 and ceased to be a Director under Rule 59 read with Rule 60. Thus out of sixteen members of the board 12 had ceased to be the Directors of the Board of Directors and there was no Board of Directors at all, at under the bye laws five Directors are required to form the quorum at any meeting. According to respondent No.1 in view of the fact that only four Directors were left they did not constitute the quorum and no valiod Board of Directors existed and as no Board of Directors existed and as no Board of Directors existed on December, 1980, the alleged Establishment sub Committee had no existence in the eyes of law and all decisions taken by the said sub Committee are void, without jurisdiction and do not effect his rights in any way whatsoever. With these allegations, respondent No., 1 raised a dispute within the meaning of Section 60 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act by sending a Memorandum of claims on September 1,1981 to the Registrar Cooperative Societies, but the Deputy Registrar Coop Societies vide his order dated 28.1.1988 expressed an opinion that since respondent No. 1 was a paid employee of the bank working as Deputy General Manager/Manager Grade 1 is not permitted to raise dispute Under Section 60 and the order of termination of his service is nothing but a disciplinary action taken by the bank against its employee. The appeal filed by respondent No. 1 was rejected as not maintainable. Aggrieved, respondent No.1 filed a writ petition in this court on 14.11.82 and Chadha J. vide his detailed order dated 21.1.85 allowed the writ petition, set aside the order passed by the Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies and Direction was given to the Registrar Cooperative Societies so as to admit the claim of respondent No.1 and to decide the disputes raised by him in the Memorandum of claims in accordance with the Act and the rules. However, it was observed that it was not obligatory on the Registrar to determine the procedural irregularity or illegalities in the enquiry, the findings of the Enquiry officer or the quantum of the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority in case he holds that the Board of Directors or the Establishment Sub Committee was properly constituted.