K M MOHNOT Vs. CHAIRMAN BANK OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order of General Manager, the Bank of Rajasthan Limited, dated 22nd of July, 1988, marked as Anx. 2, whereby the General Manager of the aforesaid Bank has ordered for the dismissal of the petitioner from services of the Respondent Bank with immediate effect as also the appellate order of the Chairman and the appellate authority of the Bank dated 6th of December, 1988, marked as Anx. 5, whereby the order of dismissal has been converted into one of compulsory retirement of the petitioner from the Bank's services and the petitioner was made entitled to the payment of pension and gratuity payable to the Officers of the Bank and the order of the Board marked as Anx. 7 dated 17. 7. 1989 whereby the mercy petition of the petitioner was dismissed and the Board deprived the petitioner from the Provident Fund Contribution made by the Bank to his P. F. Account and further deprived him of the payment of gratuity. They were forfeited. The initial resolution in that respect was passed by the Board of Directors on 1. 2. 1989 and the same was confirmed at the time of the rejection of his mercy petition dated 26. 3. 1989.

(2.) THE facts necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this writ petition briefly stated are that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of officer in the Bank of Rajasthan on 18. 5. 1957. Later he was promoted as Assistant Manager, Manager and Manager A Grade, with effect from 8. 3. 1958, 22. 6. 1960 and 1. 1. 1976 respectively and continued to discharge duties as such Manager Grade A till 22. 6. 1988 when he was ordered to be dismissed from service vide Anx. 2. It was claimed that the Bank of Rajasthan is a registered body under the Banking Act of 1949. It is discharging different functions, i. e. to promote the economic interest of the public and is actively participating in the draught relief programme within the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India and caters to all types of credit needs of all the persons belonging to economically weaker-sections of the society. It is managed by 11 Directors, out of which four are nominated by the Reserve Bank of India under section 37a and B of the Banking Regulation Act of 1949. It is a scheduled and a licenced Bank and has to keep its reserves with the Reserve Bank of India. Thus , it discharges public nature of functions and, therefore, it is an instrumentality of the State and therefore, a state under Article 12 of the Constitution. It was claimed that the petitioner was issued with a charge-sheet by the 2nd Respondent, i. e. the Chairman and the Chief Executive Officer of the Bank vide his letter No. 33/per/413/81 dated 10. 1. 1981. Briefly stated, the charges are as under: 1. " That he made advances beyond his powers, without obtaining the sanction from the competent authority; 2. That he was grossly negligent in conducting the advances portfolio at the B/o Kanpur in respect of various parties; 3.That he accommodated various parties by granting OD. limits despite suspenion of his sanctioning and discretionary powers; 4. That he concealed the relevant information from the Central Office; 5.That he authorised the payment of a cheque for Rs. 6000/- in the a/c of M/s Idsun Industries when sufficient D. P. was not available. "

(3.) THE entire thrust of Shri J. P. Joshi's submission is that the respondent bank not being a State, as defined in Article 12 of the Constitution and it not being an instrumentality of the State or any department of the State, no writ petition is maintainable against it. In this respect Mr. Joshi has taken a preliminary objection that no writ of mandamus lies against the Bank and, therefore, the writ should be dismissed. In support of his arguments he has drawn my attention to the decision of the learned single Judge of this Court rendered in Hiralal v. Railway Shramik Sahakari Bank limited reported in (1), in which it was held that the writ lies against the State or other authorities. Non-petitioner Railway Shramik Sahakari Bank Ltd. is not a State or other authority. It has been registered as a society under the Societies Registration Act and does not become State or other authority ipso facto. THE petitioner has to show that it is an instrumentality or agency of the State. It was pointed out by the learned single Judge that no Government control has been pointed out. In fact, the society is run by the members. Main financial source of the Society is the share capital and the deposits made by the members of the society. THE society accepts the deposit only from the members advances the loan for carrying on bank business only amongst its members and thus it is not an instrumentality of the State.