BAIJNATH Vs. ZILA SAHAKARI KENDRIYA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order of his compulsory retirement (AnnexureF) dated 23-8-1988 passed under Rule 72 of the Madbya Pradesh Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Karamchari Sewa (Niyojan, Nibandhan Tatha Karyasthiti) Niyam, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as "the Service Rules").

(2.) It is not disputed that the Service Rules are statutory Service Rules framed by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Madhya Pradesh, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 55 (1) of the M. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The petitioner's case, in brief, is that he was appointed as a driver on 20th November, 1964. By an order dated 17-4-1985 (Annexure B), the petitioner was demoted from the post of Driver to the post of Peon. The petitioner raised a dispute about his demotion, under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the conciliation proceedings were pending. During the pendency of the conciliation proceedings, the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, passed an order under Section 49-A (2) of the Act anulling the order of demotion. Hence, the conciliation proceedings were dropped. Because of this the respondents were annoyed with the petitioner and they, anyhow, wanted to get rid of the petitioner. Hence, the impugned order Annexure F was passed under Rule 72 of the Service Rules compulsorily retiring the petitioner, stating in the impugned order that the petitioner has completed 25 years of service ; hence, in view of the exercise of powers and in the interest of the Bank after giving three months' wages in lieu of three months' notice, the petitioner was retired from service. It is this order, the petitioner has challenged on mala fides and also on the ground that the petitioner has not yet completed 25 years of service and further in retiring the petitioner, there was an abuse of the power under Rule 72 of the Service Rules and the retirement was not because, it was in the interest of the respondent Bank.

(3.) The respondents, in their return, have contended that the petitioner was retired in the interest of the Bank as the petitioner entered in the Bank's service on 15-12-1962. Copies of the appointment order and the joining report have been annexed as Annexures R-2 and R-3. The respondents contended that because of the audit report and objection that there were 6 drivers on 4 vehicles, out of which one vehicle was auctioned in September, 1988, with a view to minimise the management expenses, after consideration of the audit report, in the interest of the Bank, it was thought fit to retire . the petitioner. The respondent Bank has power to retire an employee under Rule 72 of the Service Rules, without assigning any reason, after his completion of either 55 years of age or 25 years of service, after giving 3 months' notice or 3 months' pay and allowances in lieu of the notice period. Rule 72 of the Service Rules is not challengeable before the High Court. It was contended by the respondents that as there is no statutory violation of any statutory rules, the respondent Bank, which is a Co-operative Society under the Act, being not a statutory body or an authority under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, no writ is maintainable against the respondent Bank and the retirement cannot be challenged. It was also contended by the respondents in their return that as there is an alternative and efficacious remedy available to the petitioner to raise a dispute before the Registrar of Co-operative Societies under Section 55 of the Act, the petitioner ought to have availed of the remedy provided under the Act available to the petitioner.