ANJANA TOMAR Vs. STATE OF M. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is preferred against the order dtd. 25/1/2014 passed by CEO, Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Mydt., Morena, whereby concurring with the findings given by the Board of Directors, invoking the provisions under Rule 53.1 of Bank Karmchari Sewa Niyam and Rule 12(b) (ii)(iii) of Bank HRD Policy, the petitioner was compulsorily retired.

(2.) A solitary ground has been raised by the counsel for the petitioner that as per Rule 61 of the M.P./Chhattisgarh Ke Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Karmchari Sewa Niyojan Nibandhan Tatha Unki Karya Sthiti Niyam, 1982 (hereinafter referred as Rule of 1982) for imposing major punishment on a bank employee, the competent authority is Staff Upsamiti and since the order has been passed by CEO of the Bank, the order is per se without jurisdiction, thus, is liable to be set aside.

(3.) While referring to Rule 57 of the Rules of 1982, it was argued that compulsory retirement of an employee would amount to major punishment and, therefore, as per Rule 61, the said order could only have been passed by the Staff Upsamiti, thus, in the light of aforesaid legal position the impugned order Annexure P/1 dtd. 25/1/2014 deserves to be quashed.