JUDGMENT - KANADE V.M., J.:-By this petition, petitioner seeks appropriate writ, direction or order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India quashing the order of termination dated 14-11-2000 passed by respondent No. 1 Bank and seeks further direction that the petitioner be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits.

2. Petitioner was appointed as a clerk in the year 1964 in the respondent No. 1 the Ratnagiri District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. which is a bank registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. Petitioners case is that he was promoted and appointed as Manager of respondent No. 1. Petitioners case is that his services were terminated after holding an inquiry. Petitioner is challenging the said order of termination on various grounds. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, inter alia, submitted that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not be maintainable against respondent No. 1 which is a bank registered under the Co-operative Societies Act. He relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of (Federal Bank Ltd. v. Sagar Thomas and others)1, reported in 2003(III) C.L.R. 801 wherein the Apex Court has held that private bank cannot be classified in one polity in the category of discharging duties amounting to public nature.

3. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of (Ram Sahan Rai v. Sachiv Samanava Prabandhak and another)2, reported in 2001(3) S.C.C. 323. The Apex Court in the said case, after examining the status of the District Co-operative Bank, came to the conclusion that the State Government had all pervasive control over the bank and its employees which were governed by the statutory rules and, therefore, the Apex Court held that the defendant bank was an instrumentality of the State. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner further relied on the Full Bench decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of (Sri Konaseema Co-operative Central Bank Ltd., Amalapuram and another v. N. Seetharama Raju)3, reported in A.I.R. 1990 Andhra Pradesh 171. In the said case, Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that if a particular Co-operative Society can be characterized as a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution (applying the test evolved by the Supreme Court in that behalf), it will be amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. It further held that even if a society cannot be characterized as a State within the meaning of Article 12, even so a writ would lie against it to enforce a statutory public duty which an employee is entitled to enforce against the society. He further relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of (Uttar Pradesh State Co-operative Land Development Bank Ltd. v. Chandra Bhan Dubey and others)4, reported in 1999(1) L.L.N. 1081, wherein the Apex Court has held that the Uttar Pradesh State Co-operative Land Development Bank Ltd. is an instrumentality of State or an authority within the meaning of Article 12 and that the service conditions of its employees are statutory in nature.

FINDINGS

4. There cannot be any dispute regarding the ratio laid down by the Apex Court and the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the aforesaid judgments referred to by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. However, the ratio of the said judgments will not be applicable to the facts of the present case. Respondent No. 1 is a bank registered under the provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. The conditions of service of the employees of the said bank are governed by its bye-laws and rules. No attempt is made to indicate that the respondent No. 1 bank is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The Apex Court in the case of Federal Bank Ltd. (supra) held that the activities of the bank cannot be classified as one fallin

Click Here to Read the rest of this document