(1.) The petitioner, a Probationary Officer tn a Bank, has challenged the order by which his services were terminated. There was a difference of opinion between the members of the division bench which heard the writ petition earlier. The Acting Chief Justice vide order dated 16.8.1993 directed that the writ petition be placed before a full bench and that is how the case has come before us for hearing.
(2.) The Parliament enacted the Regional Rural Banks Act (Act No. XXI of 1976) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to provide for the Incorporation, regulation and winding up of Regional Rural Banks with a view of developing the rural economy by providing, for the purpose of development of agriculture, trade, commerce, industry and other productive activities in the rural areas, credit and other facilities, particularly to the small and marginal farmers, agricultural labourers, artisans and small entrepreneurs and for matters connected therewith and incidental thereto. Prathma Bank, respondent No. 2. was established as rural bank in Moradabad in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Section 29 of the Act gives power to make the rules and Section 30 provides that the Board of Directors of a Regional Rural Bank may. after consultation with the Sponsor Bank and the Reserve Bank and with the previous sanction of the Central Government, make regulations to provide for all matters for which provision is necessary or expedient for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of the Act. In exercise of the aforesaid powers Prathma Bank (Staff) Service Regulations, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations) were made by the Board of Directors of respondent No. 2. Regulations 8 and 10 which are relevant for the decision of the writ petition are being reproduced below :
(3.) The petitioner was selected for the post of Probationary Officer in Prathma Bank, Moradabad (hereinafter referred to as the Bank). After completion of training, he was issued an appointment order on 23.4.1983 appointing him as Probationary Officer w.e.f. 10.4.1983. Since the terras of the appointment order have a bearing on the controversy raised in the case, the relevant part thereof is being reproduced below :