CHIMANLAL K PATEL Vs. DENA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE judgment and order dated 23.8.2012 in Special Civil Application No.3925 of 1998 dismissing the petition of the present appellant for quashing and setting-aside his order of dismissal by the respondents is under challenge in the present appeal.

(2.) LEARNED advocate Mr.Biren A.Vaishnav for the appellant has agreed to take up the matter for final hearing considering the fact that, only question of law is involved in the matter and, therefore, matter is heard on merits in detail. It is submitted by Mr.Vaishnav, learned advocate for the appellant that order of termination from service is harsh and it was with malice and without giving reasonable opportunity, and the same was without jurisdiction because the Assistant General Manager of the Bank is not the appointing authority and, therefore, not competent to pass the order of termination of the appellant.

(3.) SO far as other allegations regarding jurisdiction and powers of the punishing authority is concerned, it is contended by the appellant that he was appointed by the Deputy General Manager and, therefore, order of punishment by Assistant General Manager is without jurisdiction and requires to be set- aside. However, the settled legal position is otherwise. Factually, in the present case, as observed in the impugned order, Asst.General Manager is the regional authority exercising powers as disciplinary authority in accordance with the authority confirmed upon him by the Board of Directors as per Dena Bank Officers Employee's (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976, which are framed in exercise of powers under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970. It is clear that power has been delegated to the concerned authorities by the highest executive body i.e. Board of Directors and, therefore, Dy.General Manager and Asst.General Manager have exercised the powers, which have been delegated/confirmed upon them by the highest executive authority.