Judgment 1. Appellant Central Bank of India, is aggrieved by the decision of the learned Single Judge on the point of vires of Regulation 20(1) of the Central Bank of India (Officers) Service Regulations, 1979, framed under Sec. 9 read with Sec. 12(2) of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970. The validity of various provisions of the said Regulations was challenged by the Officers Association, called All India Central Bank Officers Federation. While the challenge to the other provisions did not find favour with the learned Judge, as regards Regulation 20(1) he held the same to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, conferring arbitrary and unbridled power on the employer to terminate the services of even permanent employees and accordingly struck down the same. 2. The Regulation 20(1) read as follows:- - "20. Termination of Service (1) Subject to sub regulation (3) of Regulation 16 the bank may terminate the services of any officer by giving him three months notice in writing or by paying him three months, emoluments in lieu thereof." Sub-regulation (3) of the Regulation 16 deals with the power of the competent authority to terminate the appointment/promotion of Probationers during the period of probation where authority is of the opinion that the officer is not fit for confirmation. We are not concerned with the said provision in this case. The point for consideration is whether the provision as contained in Regulation 20(1) confers arbitrary and unbridled power upon the management to terminate the services of the employees and the decision of the learned Single Judge on the point is correct. 3. The only point urged by the Counsel for the appellant was that the officers of the Bank do not hold civil post and protection of Article 311 of the Constitution is not available to them. Having regard to the nature of the activities carried on by the Banks, being of commercial nature, the power to terminate the appointment of even permanent employees after giving three months notice or on payment of emoluments in lieu thereof must be conceded to it. Reliance was placed on a Bench decision of this Court in State Bank of India Officers Association V/s. S.D. Ganda, 1985 PLJR 900. 4. The same argument appears to have been advanced before the learned Single Judge as well. Reliance was placed on a Bench decision of this Court in State Bank of India Officers Association V/s. S.D. Ganda, 1985 PLJR 900. 4. The same argument appears to have been advanced before the learned Single Judge as well. The learned Judges, however, did not accept the same in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in West Bengal State Electricity Board V/s. Deshbandhu Bose, (1985-I-LLJ-373) The relevant provision which falls for consideration in that case was as follows :- - "In case of permanent employees, the services may be terminated by serving three months notice or on payment of salary for the corresponding period in lieu thereof." The Supreme Court noticed its earlier decision in Moti Ram Deka V/s. North East Frontier Railway, (1964-II-LLJ-467) and observed as follows : "On the face of it the regulation is totally arbitrary and confers on the Board a power which is capable of vicious discrimination. It is a naked hire and fire rule the time for banishing which altogether from employer relationship is fast approaching. Its only parallel is to be found in the Henry VIII class so familiar to the administrative lawyers." 5. Counsel for the appellant submitted that in the S.B.I. Officers case (supra) this Court had occasion to deal with an identical provision and the same was upheld. He pointed out that this Court made distinction between employees holding civil post to whom the protection against removal from service is available under Article 311(2) of the Constitution and employees of Government undertakings. Counsel referred to the following observation of this Court in the aforementioned case : "... the Supreme Court never purported to lay down that employees of such Government undertaking are for practical purpose holders of civil posts to whom protection against removal from service as contained under Article 311(2) of the Constitution has to be extended directly or indirectly. In my view paragraph 20(1) of the Order cannot be held to be ultra vires because it vests power in the Bank to terminate the service of a permanent employee. At times it is proper to terminate the service of a permanent employee taking into consideration his overall performance which is not in the interest of the public and Bank." 6. At times it is proper to terminate the service of a permanent employee taking into consideration his overall performance which is not in the interest of the public and Bank." 6. It should be kept in mind that in Deshbandhu Boses case, the Supreme Court was dealing with the employees of the West Bengal Electricity Board who do not hold civil posts within the meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution. Therefore, the distinction between Government employee holding civil posts and employees of Government undertakings or other instrumentalities of the State not holding civil post, in this context cannot be said to be correct. However, the decision in Deshbandhu Boses case was rendered later and, therefore, there was no occasion to cite the same or, for this Court, to consider the same. Counsel pointed out that the SLP against the judgment was dismissed by the Supreme Court. But it is now well settled that the summary rejection of the SLP does not mean that the Supreme Court has approved the judgment of the Court on merit. 7. The case of Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. V/s. Brojo Nath Ganguly, (1986-II-LLJ-171) is also relevant to the point. There the Supreme Court has occasion to consider the question of validity of a similar provision in the context of employees of a Government company. The relevant provision regarding termination of employees for acts other than misdemeanour was contained in Rule 9(1) of the Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. (Service, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979, to the following effect : "The employment of a permanent employee shall be subiect to termination on three months notice on either side. The notice shall be in writing on either side. The company may pay equivalent of three months basic pay and dear-ness allowance, if any, in lieu of notice or may deduct a like amount when the employee has failed to give due notice." The Supreme Court observed that whereas other provisions of the Service Rules of the Corporation mention grounds on which services of an employee can be terminated, Clause (1) of Rule 9 is the only rule which does not state in what circumstances a permanent employee can be removed from service. It conferred unbridled power on the authority which was therefore arbitrary. It conferred unbridled power on the authority which was therefore arbitrary. The provision was void under Sec. 23 of the Contract Act as being opposed to public policy and also ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution to the extent that it conferred upon the Corporation the right to terminate employment of a permanent employee by giving him three months notice in writing or by paying three months equivalent basic pay and dearness allowance in lieu of such notice. Besides being arbitrary and unreasonable, it wholly ignores audi alteram partem rule. It was also violative of Directive Principles contained in Article 39 (a) and 41 of the Constitution. On these findings the provision was struck down. 8. Reference may be made to the decision of the Constitution Bench in Delhi Transport Corporation V/s. D.T.C. Majdoor Congress, (1991-I-LLJ-395). In that case, four learned Judges of the Supreme Court in their separate concurrent judgment (representing the majority view-four to one-of the Court) after survey of the principles and precedents on the point, came to similar conclusion that the provision conferring power to remove permanent employee from service without assigning any reason was arbitrary, unfair, unjust, unreasonable and against public policy. Such a provision not only violates the constitutional mandate of Article 14 but also is void under Sec. 23 of the Contract Act as being opposed to public policy. 9. The point being thus settled by the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court (without citing other decision), We do not think it is necessary to undertake any detailed discussion of the point. The observation of this Court in the SBI Officers case, quoted above, upholding the validity of Clause 20(1) of the State Bank of India Officers (Determination of Terms and Condition of Service) Order, 1979, appears to be at tangent with the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court and, therefore, cannot be accepted as binding precedent on the point. 10. In the above premises, we do not find any error in the judgment of the learned Single Judge striking down the Regulation as ultra vires the Constitution of India. The appeal is consequently dismissed. 11. As there is no appearance by respondents we would make no order as to costs.