JUDGMENT 1. - Invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court enshrined under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner in this writ petition has assailed the impugned order dated 29th of January 2013 (Annex.4) passed by the second respondent. 2. Succinctly stated, the factual matrix of this case is that the petitioner at the inception of his service career was appointed as Agriculture Officer (Scale-I) on 4th January 1988 with the erstwhile Bank of Rajasthan Limited. On successful completion of probation period of two years, the petitioner was allotted Permanent Account No.A-1138. While in service of the Bank of Rajasthan Limited, the petitioner was promoted in the cadre of Agriculture Officer (Scale-II) in the year 1995 and in the year 2005-06 he has availed yet another promotion in the cadre of Agriculture Officer (Scale-III). As per averments in the writ petition, right from the inception of his service career, the petitioner is discharging his duties with utmost satisfaction. The Bank of Rajasthan subsequently amalgamated into the respondent ICICI Bank w.e.f. 12th August 2010 by invoking Section 44-A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1949'). As a consequence of amalgamation, the petitioner became employee of the respondent ICICI Bank. After amalgamation, the respondents posted the petitioner as Manager-II at Jorhat Branch, Assam, and thereafter he was transferred as Branch Manager, Mandore Krishi Mandi Branch of the Bank at Jodhpur. While serving at Mandore Krishi Mandi Branch at Jodhpur, order impugned was issued whereby services of the petitioner were terminated. The order to this effect was passed on 29th January 2013 (Annex.4). 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Nitin Trivedi has urged that the respondent ICICI Bank is carrying out the banking operations in adherence of the Act of 1949 and the entire functioning of the Bank is under the Supervisory control of Reserve Bank of India. With these contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that status of respondent ICICI Bank Limited is akin to that of a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. To substantiate this contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a decision of this Court dated 2nd of April 2008 in case of Hadmana Ram & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. To substantiate this contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a decision of this Court dated 2nd of April 2008 in case of Hadmana Ram & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2062 of 2007). The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed heavy reliance on the last paragraph of the aforesaid judgment. The complete text of last paragraph of the decision is reproduced as under: "So far as the maintainability of the writ petition against the company is concerned, it is a petition not against the respondent company alone, but against the Government authorities also who all were parties to Annexure-1 which is required to enforce Annexture-1. Thus, taking note of this fact, coupled with the fact that in Annexure-1, even SDO was made Chairman of the Committee, necessarily this writ petition is not against the company itself as the Government and authorities are also parties to the writ petition, as otherwise, mentioned in Annexure-1, thus objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondents regarding maintainability of the writ petition is not sustainable and the said objection is rejected. In view of the directions and observations made above, necessary compliance of the order would be made by the respondents within the time-frame given above. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of accordingly". 5. While assailing the impugned order Annex.4, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the order has been passed in gross violation of the principles of audi-alteram-partem, and as such the same is not sustainable. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the order impugned is stigmatic inasmuch as from the recitals contained in the order it is crystal clear that the authority has recorded a finding that the respondent Bank has lost confidence in the petitioner. The precise contention of the petitioner is that the order is stigmatic and before passing the said order neither the petitioner was chargesheeted nor any disciplinary enquiry was conducted and therefore the order is bad in law and deserves to be quashed and set aside. 6. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. 7. Before adverting to examine the matter on merits, it is desirable to examine the question of maintainability of the writ petition. 6. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. 7. Before adverting to examine the matter on merits, it is desirable to examine the question of maintainability of the writ petition. The crucial question that requires judicial scrutiny by this Court is whether the respondent ICICI Bank is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, which is pre-requisite for maintainability of a writ petition. If this issue is decided on the touch-stone of the decision of this Court referred to supra, then it will, ipso facto, reveal that the said decision is of no help to the petitioner. In fact, this Court while rendering the said decision has not recorded any finding worth the name that Ambuja Cement Company Limited, which is a company registered under the Companies Act 1956, is a State within the meaning of Article 12. 8. For throwing the light on this aspect of the matter, reliance can be profitably made to a decision of Apex Court in case of Federal Bank Limited v. Sagar Thomas & Ors., (2003) 10 SCC 733 . The Apex Court while examining the said issue vis-a-vis a banking company registered under the Companies Act 1956, made following observations in Para 26 of the verdict: 26. A company registered under the Companies Act for the purposes of carrying on any trade or business is a private enterprise to earn livelihood and to make profits out of such activities. Banking is also a kind of profession and a commercial activity, the primary motive behind it can well be said to earn returns and profits. Since time immemorial, such activities have been carried on by individuals generally. It is a private affair of the company though case of nationalised banks stands on a different footing. There may, well be companies, in which majority of the share capital may be contributed out of the State funds and in that view of the matter there may be more participation or dominant participation of the State in managing the affairs of the company. But in the present case we are concerned with a banking company which has its own resources to raise its funds without any contribution or shareholding by the State. It has its own Board of Directors elected by its shareholders. But in the present case we are concerned with a banking company which has its own resources to raise its funds without any contribution or shareholding by the State. It has its own Board of Directors elected by its shareholders. It works like any other private company in the banking business having no monopoly status at all. Any company carrying on banking business with a capital of five lacs will become a scheduled bank. All the same, banking activity as a whole carried on by various banks undoubtedly has an impact and effect on the economy of the country in general. Money of the shareholders and the depositors is with such companies, carrying on banking activity. The banks finance the borrowers on any given rate of interest at a particular time. They advance loans as against securities. Therefore, it is obviously necessary to have regulatory check over such activities in the interest of the company itself, the shareholders, the depositors as well as to maintain the proper financial equilibrium of the national economy. The Banking companies have not been set up for the purposes of building economy of the State; on the other hand such private companies have been voluntarily established for their own purposes and interest but their activities are kept under check so that their activities may not go wayward and harm the economy in general. A private banking company with all freedom that it has, has to act in a manner that it may not be in conflict with or against the fiscal policies of the State and for such purposes, guidelines are provided by the Reserve Bank so that a proper fiscal discipline, to conduct its affairs in carrying on its business, is maintained. So as to ensure adherence to such fiscal discipline, if need be, at times even the management of the company can be taken over. Nonetheless, as observed earlier, these are all regulatory measures to keep a check and provide guidelines and not a participatory dominance or control over the affairs of the company. For other companies in general carrying on other business activities may be manufacturing, other industries or any business, such checks are provided under the provisions of the Companies Act, as indicated earlier. For other companies in general carrying on other business activities may be manufacturing, other industries or any business, such checks are provided under the provisions of the Companies Act, as indicated earlier. There also, the main consideration is that the company itself may not sink because of its own mismanagement or the interest of the shareholders or people generally may not be jeopardised for that reason. Besides taking care of such interest as indicated above, there is no other interest of the State, to control the affairs and management of the private companies. Care is taken in regard to the industries covered under the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 that their production which is important for the economy may not go down yet the business activity is carried on by such companies or corporations which only remains a private activity of the entrepreneurs/companies. 9. While examining the regulatory provisions contained under the Act of 1949 and laying down of the banking policies by the Reserve Bank of India for carrying out the business activities in Para 32 of the verdict, the Apex Court has observed as infra: 32. Merely because Reserve Bank of India lays the banking policy in the interest of the banking system or in the interest of monetary stability or sound economic growth having due regard to the interests of the depositors etc. as provided under Section 5(c) (a) of the Banking Regulation Act does not mean that the private companies carrying on the business of or commercial activity of banking, discharge any public function or public duty. These are all regulatory measures applicable to those carrying on commercial activity in banking and these companies are to act according to these provisions failing which certain consequences follow as indicated in the Act itself. As to the provision regarding acquisition of a banking company by the Government, it may be pointed out that any private property can be acquired by the Government in public interest. It is now a judicially accepted norm that private interest has to give way to the public interest. If a private property is acquired in public interest it does not mean that the party whose property is acquired is performing or discharging any function or duty of public character though it would be so for acquiring authority. 10. It is now a judicially accepted norm that private interest has to give way to the public interest. If a private property is acquired in public interest it does not mean that the party whose property is acquired is performing or discharging any function or duty of public character though it would be so for acquiring authority. 10. In the final conclusion, the Apex Court has concluded that the Federal Bank Limited is not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. For ready reference, Para 33 is also reproduced as under: 33. For the discussion held above, in our view, a private company carrying on banking business as a scheduled bank, cannot be termed as an institution or a company carrying on any statutory or public duty. A private body or a person may be amenable to writ jurisdiction only where it may become necessary to compel such body or association to enforce any statutory obligations or such obligations of public nature casting positive obligation upon it. We don't find such conditions are fulfilled in respect of a private company carrying on a commercial activity of banking. Merely regulatory provisions to ensure such activity carried on by private bodies work within a discipline, do not confer any such status upon the company nor put any such obligation upon it which may be enforced through issue of a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution. Present is a case of disciplinary action being taken against its employee by the appellant Bank. The respondent's service with the bank stands terminated. The action of the Bank was challenged by the respondent by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The respondent is not trying to enforce any statutory duty on the part of the Bank. That being the position, the appeal deserves to be allowed". 11. In yet another case of Gopal Prasad Varshney v. Bank of Rajasthan Limited, 2009 (3) WLC (Raj.) 1 the Larger Bench of this Court had occasion to answer the question whether Bank of Rajasthan Limited is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution or not. That being the position, the appeal deserves to be allowed". 11. In yet another case of Gopal Prasad Varshney v. Bank of Rajasthan Limited, 2009 (3) WLC (Raj.) 1 the Larger Bench of this Court had occasion to answer the question whether Bank of Rajasthan Limited is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution or not. While examining the matter, the Larger Bench has answered the question in negative and has held that Bank of Rajasthan is not a State within the meaning of Article 12 and as such is not amenable to writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 12. Thus, in the light of ratio decided of the aforesaid judgments, I have no hesitation to conclude that the writ petition against the respondent Bank is not maintainable. In view of authoritative pronouncement of Hon'ble Apex Court and a verdict of Larger Bench of this Court, there remains no doubt that the respondent Bank is not amenable to writ jurisdiction of this Court. 13. The net result is that the present writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. 14. It is made clear that the dismissal of this writ petition shall not fetter the rights of the petitioner to seek remedy against the impugned order of termination in accordance with law.There is no order as to costs.Petition Dismissed. *******