ABUTT NELSON MUKSOR Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who is stated to have been serving as the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Jowai Cooperative Urban Bank Limited, Ladthadlaboh, Jowai is before this Court by way of the instant writ petition praying for quashing and setting aside of his removal on the basis of a Circular dtd. 25/6/2021, and has impugned the decision of the Board of Directors of the Respondent Bank in its meeting held on 9/11/2023, as also impugned letter of termination of service dtd. 22/11/2023.

(2.) Before adverting to the arguments advanced by the respective counsel for the parties, it is relevant to note herein that a Circular dtd. 25/6/2021, had been issued by the Reserve Bank of India (Respondents No. 8, 9 and 10), wherein at clause - 4 thereof, the tenure of an MD/CEO had been prescribed to be not for a period of more than 5(five) years at a time, subject to a minimum period of 3(three) years at the time of first appointment. It appears that the Board of Directors apart from other considerations, had based its Resolution for removal of the petitioner from the office of CEO in this Circular. The same is reflected in the minutes of the BoD meeting dtd. 9/11/2023, wherein at Para - 7(a), it has been noted that the writ petitioner having been appointed on 20/11/2020, by application of the RBI Circular dtd. 25/6/2021, his services were to terminate on 30/11/2023.

(3.) This Circular then came to be challenged across many High Courts in their respective jurisdictions, and the same was stayed by the Madras High Court, whereafter, by an order of the Supreme Court dtd. 14/10/2022, passed in a batch of transfer petitions, directions were issued that all similar matters challenging the validity of the Circular dtd. 25/6/2021, would be transferred to the High Court of Madras. With regard to the petitioner, wherein he had made the same challenge to the Circular dtd. 25/6/2021, this Court by order dtd. 17/4/2024, in WP(C) No. 109 of 2024, in compliance with the order of the Supreme Court then transferred the said writ petition to the Madras High Court, and though a stay order is operating, the same is in the stage of hearing and no final orders have been passed. By this subsequent writ petition, from the facts as noted earlier, the writ petitioner was removed basically in consideration of the directives of the Circular dtd. 25/6/2021, which has since been stayed. This Court therefore at this juncture is only to examine as to whether the writ petitioner will be eligible to continue in office by virtue of the stay of the Circular dtd. 25/6/2021, or whether apart from this aspect, he may be allowed to continue in office on other considerations and circumstances which are peculiar to the instant case.