BALADA LAKSHMINARAYANA DEO Vs. IMPERIAL BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I cannot agree with the view taken by both Courts below that a servant of the Imperial Bank of India holds his office at pleasure and is liable to be dismissed without notice.

(2.) The view is based on Chellam Aiyar V/s. Corporation of Madras (1917) 6 L.W. 284, in which case provisions similar to Section 50 of Schedule II of the Imperial Bank of India Act were considered and interpreted in that light.

(3.) The decision along with others has been fully considered. In Venkateswara Aiyar V/s. S.M.S. Devasthanam (1935) 69 M.L.J. 206, which I take as my authority for the true position, servants of the Crown hold office during the pleasure of the Crown - not by virtue of any special prerogative of the Crown but because such are the terms of their engagement Shanton V/s. Smith (1895) A.C. 229. But servants even of a statutory body do not hold office at pleasure merely because the statute provides the body or person by whom they may be dismissed. It is not right to assume that the power of dismissal is a power of summary dismissal.