Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 85 (MP)

Ajay Tiwari v. State of M. P.

2020-01-13

SANJAY DWIVEDI

body2020
ORDER 1. All these petitions are involving similar question, therefore, the matters are heard analogously and are being decided by this common order. In all these petitions, the orders passed by the Chief Executive Officer, are under challenge. For the sake of convenience, facts from W.P. No.23793/2018 are being taken-up. 2. The basic ground of challenge is that the orders passed by the Chief Executive Officer are without jurisdiction, therefore, the same deserve to be quashed. All the petitioners are the employees of Zila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Jabalpur, which is a society registered under the Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. 3. As contended by learned counsel for the petitioners, the Chief Executive Officer is implementing the decision taken by the Staff Sub Committee on 13.8.2018 and placing the petitioners under suspension. Learned counsel for the petitioners have contended that the Board of Directors of the respondent-Bank has already been superseded on 20.6.2017 due to expiry of its term and the Staff Sub Committee works under the Board of Directors, therefore, in absence of any Board of Directors, no decision can be taken by the Staff Sub Committee and the decision taken by them, as referred in the order of the Chief Executive Officer, is also illegal and further, the Chief Executive Officer has no jurisdiction and competence to implement such decision and place the petitioners under suspension. 4. Reply has been filed by the respondents, but so far as the ground of jurisdiction and competence of the authority is concerned, nothing has been stated therein. 5. As far as the issue regarding competence of Administrator is concerned, it has already been dealt with by the High Court in the order dated 2.12.2016 passed in W.P. No. 6914/2015 [Raghwan Choubey v. State of M.P. and others] wherein it has been held that appointment of Administrator is an ad-hoc arrangement and he acts as an Officer-In-Charge, therefore, he has no right to take any disciplinary action against the employees of the Bank. The observation made by the High Court in the said writ petition, is being reproduced hereinbelow: "2. The sole ground raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is based on the judgment passed in Zila Sahakari Krishi Aur Gramin Vikas Bank Maryadit, Mandla and others v. Vasudev Gupta and another, 2003 RN 172= 2003(2) MPLJ 361 . He relied on Para 10, which reads as under: "10. The sole ground raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is based on the judgment passed in Zila Sahakari Krishi Aur Gramin Vikas Bank Maryadit, Mandla and others v. Vasudev Gupta and another, 2003 RN 172= 2003(2) MPLJ 361 . He relied on Para 10, which reads as under: "10. In view of settled position by Apex Court and Division Bench of this Court, it is apparent that the Officer Incharge has limited powers and was not having powers to retire compulsorily the employees of the Bank. If he was having cogent reasons to retire the employees compulsorily, then he was required to seek approval of the Registrar in this regard, because the Registrar has delegated his powers to the Officer Incharge under sub-section 8(ii) of Section 49 of the Act. He being a delegatee of the Registrar cannot act as Registrar. In the circumstances, he was required to take approval of the Registrar before retiring compulsorily the respondents. In this regard, without seeking approval from Registrar, action of the petitioners - retiring compulsorily the respondents, was not valid." [Emphasis Supplied] 3. It is submitted that the Officer In-charge had no power to terminate the services of the petitioner. No approval for termination was obtained from the Registrar. Hence, termination order is bad in law." 6. In view of the aforesaid, I am of the opinion that in all these petitions, the orders have been passed by the Chief Executive Officer as an Officer-In-Charge, therefore, the same suffer from incompetence. 7. Accordingly, all these petitions are allowed and the orders impugned therein passed by the Chief Executive Officer, are hereby set-aside. No orders as to costs.