Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 274 (MP)

Anjana Tomar v. State of M. P.

2025-04-09

MILIND RAMESH PHADKE

body2025
ORDER 1. The present petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is preferred against the order dated 25.1.2014 passed by CEO, Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Mydt., Morena, whereby concurring with the findings given by the Board of Directors, invoking the provisions under Rule 53.1 of Bank Karmchari Sewa Niyam and rule 12(b) (ii)(iii) of Bank HRD Policy, the petitioner was compulsorily retired. 2. A solitary ground has been raised by the counsel for the petitioner that as per rule 61 of the M.P./Chhattisgarh Ke Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Karmchari Sewa Niyojan Nibandhan Tatha Unki Karya Sthiti Niyam, 1982 (hereinafter referred as rule of 1982) for imposing major punishment on a bank employee, the competent authority is Staff Upsamiti and since the order has been passed by CEO of the Bank, the order is per se without jurisdiction, thus, is liable to be set aside. 3. While referring to rule 57 of the rules of 1982, it was argued that compulsory retirement of an employee would amount to major punishment and, therefore, as per rule 61, the said order could only have been passed by the Staff Upsamiti, thus, in the light of aforesaid legal position the impugned order Annexure P/1 dated 25.1.2014 deserves to be quashed. 4. It was further argued that admittedly the order of compulsory retirement was passed on 25.1.2014 and the matter was placed before the Staff Upsamiti only on 31.1.2014 for its concurrence, which was an improper procedure, as under the rules of 1982 there is no procedure for concurrence of an order passed by CEO, so far as major punishment is concerned, thus, the order is bad in law. On the aforesaid premises, it was submitted that the present petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned order dated 25.1.2014 deserves to be quashed. 5. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondents No.4 and 5 had argued before this Court that the impugned order dated 25.1.2014 has been passed only after a decision was arrived at by the Board of Directors with regard to retiring the petitioner compulsorily due to her major misconduct, which was found proved in two enquiries, which has not been challenged before this Court, thus, when there is no malafide attributed to the procedure adopted in conducting any enquiry, the order impugned doesn't deserves to be interfered. 6. 6. It was further submitted that after passing of the order same was placed before the Staff Upsamiti for its concurrence, which was accorded in the meeting conducted on 31.1.2014, thus, at this late juncture, no relief as claimed deserves to be granted to the petitioner. 7. Learned counsel for the State Shri M.S. Jadon has argued before this Court that since 13 years have passed after petitioner had been compulsorily retired, who at the time of retirement was already of 57 years of age, no purpose would be served by setting aside the order impugned and giving any relief, therefore, the petition be dismissed as infructuous. 8. After hearing rival contentions, this Court finds that as per rule 61 of the rules of 1982 Staff Upsamiti is the authority who could impose major punishment to the employees belonging to class I, II and III. 9. It is not in dispute that the petitioner belonged to one of those class, to be precise Class III and, therefore, the competent authority could be said to be Staff Upsamiti since the petitioner has been saddled with penalty of compulsory retirement, which is a major penalty as per rule 57 of rules of 1982. 10. Admittedly, herein case the Staff Upsamiti has not passed any orders rather has only concurred with the orders passed by CEO, who in turn had concurred with the order passed by the Board of Directors. Thus, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the order impugned was not passed by the competent authority. As a natural corollary, the order Annexure P/1 doesn't deserves to be stand. Accordingly, it is hereby set aside and the matter is hereby remitted back to the Bank to place the case of the petitioner before the Staff Upsamiti, who shall take appropriate decision in the matter after giving the opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 11. At this juncture, Shri R.B.S. Tomar, learned counsel for the Bank submits that presently administrator is appointed for the Bank, who is conducting the affairs and as there is no Board of Directors existing since the elections have yet not been conducted, therefore, as and when the elections would be conducted and Staff Upsamiti would be constituted from the elected members, the said matter could be placed before the Samiti. 12. 12. Looking to the present situation, this Court directs that as and when the elections of the respondent/Bank takes placed and Staff Upsamiti is constituted, the matter be placed before the said Samiti and thereafter an appropriate decision be taken. 13. With the aforesaid direction, the present petition is hereby disposed of.