KEDAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the Petitioners and the counsel for the Sasaram -Bhabhua Central Cooperative Bank Limited(hereinafter referred to as the Bank), who states that he does not have any copy of the brief and the matter be adjourned so as to enable him to reconstruct the brief. I regret not to accept such submission, in view of the fact that instant writ case was filed on 23.5.1997, the then Managing Director of the Bank entered appearance in the writ case through counsel by filing Vakalatnama dated 24.3.1998 in the registry on 21.4.1998. Learned Counsel for the Bank who is making request for adjournment to reconstruct the record accepted the Vakalatnama along with two other counsel on 24.3.1998. The present writ petition under orders dated 16.3.1998 was directed to be heard along with C.W.J.C. No. 1615 of 1997. Having noticed the aforesaid fact under orders dated 9.11.2010, this Court directed the present writ petition to be put up along with the records of C.W.J.C. No. 1615 of 1997. On 16.11.2010 both the writ petitions were called for hearing but none appeared for the Bank. This Court having noticed the aforesaid fact as also the fact that the same was the position even on earlier occasion passed over the matter observing that if none appears for the Bank on the next appointed date, the matter shall proceed. Today learned Counsel Sri Rajesh Prasad Choudhary has appeared on instruction from the Chairman of the Bank and states that he be allowed time to reconstruct the records. In view of the pendency of the matter for over 10 years and the fact that learned Counsel Sri Choudhary accepted Vakalatnama on 24.3.1998 and entered appearance in the matter way back on 21.4.1998, I am not inclined to grant any further accommodation to the Bank to reconstruct the records.

(2.) PETITIONERS in the two writ application(s), at the relevant time served as employees of the Bank. They are aggrieved by the order of the Administrator of the Bank bearing Memo No. 233 dated 14.9.1988, Annexure -1 in both the writ petitions, whereunder their services have been terminated on the ground that before their appointment approval of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies was not obtained. The impugned termination order dated 14.9.1988 was passed without observing the formalities of natural justice as also without serving any notice on the Petitioners asking them to show cause as to why their appointment be not cancelled. Further ground taken in support of the writ petition is that Respondent Nos. 8 to 36 in C.W.J.C. No. 5023 of 1997 and Respondent Nos. 8 to 38 in C.W.J.C. No. 1615 of 1997, although appointed in the service of the Bank without the approval of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies have been continued in the service of the Bank and thereby Petitioners have been discriminated infracting Articles 14, 16 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) IT is further submitted on behalf of the Petitioners that as the Petitioners are the employees of the Bank, they have the protection of Articles 14, 16 of the constitution of the India and before terminating their services under orders dated 14.9.1988, Annexure -1 they were required to have been heard, as from the order itself it will appear that they had served the Bank for more than a year before termination of their services. It is also submitted that the ground taken in the termination order that appointment of the Petitioners was made without the approval of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies is wholly non -est as in terms of the bye -laws of the Bank, the Board of Directors of the Bank is competent to make appointment even without the approval of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies. Private Respondent(s) appointed without the approval of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies have continued in the service of the Bank in compliance of the order dated 24.4.2007.