The main legal point established in the judgment is that an employment dispute governed by a private contract and not involving a public law element is not maintainable under writ jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT :

Nitin Jamdar, J.

The Petitioner was working as a Managing Director with the ICICI Bank. The Petitioner was terminated from service. The Reserve Bank India communicated its approval to the termination. The Petitioner has challenged the termination order and has prayed for consequential reliefs. The Petitioner has also challenged the communication issued by the Reserve Bank.

2. The Petitioner joined the ICICI Bank on 17 April 1984 as a Management Trainee. The Petitioner was appointed as Executive Director of the ICICI with effect from 1 April 2001 to 3 March 2006. The Petitioner was reappointed as Executive Director from 1 April 2006 to 31 March 2009. In April 2006 the Petitioner was promoted as a Deputy Managing Director. The Petitioner was then promoted as Joint Managing Director in October 2007. The Petitioner was appointed as Joint Managing Director and Chief Financial Officer from 1 April 2009 to 30 April 2009. After that, as a Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer from 1 May 2009 to 31 March 2014. The Petitioner was re-appointed as a Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer for five years from 1 April 2014 to 31 March 2019. Approval for these appointments were communicated by Reserve Bank. We refer to the Petitioner as Managing Director.

3. According to the ICICI, complaints were received against the Petitioner. ICICI, in its meeting held on 29 May 2018, constituted an enquiry by a retired Judge of the Supreme Court of India. In June 2018 the Petitioner informed ICICI that Petitioner would go on leave till the enquiry is completed. By letter dated 3 October 2018, the Petitioner sought an early retirement. ICICI, by the communication dated 4 October 2018 accepted the request for early retirement subject to certain conditions. On 27 January 2019 the report of the enquiry was submitted. The report was adverse to the Petitioner. In the meeting held on 30 January 2019, the Board of the ICICI treated the separation of the Petitioner's service as a Termination for Cause. A communication to that effect was issued to the Petitioner. By further communication dated 1 February 2019, ICICI revoked the retirement benefits of the Petitioner. Correspondence ensued between the parties. The Petitioner called upon the ICICI to restore to the Petitioner the existing and future entitlements, including unpaid amounts, stock options, medical benefits. ICICI refused the request.

4. The Petitioner thereafter filed the present Petition on 20 November 2019 praying for a declaration that the communication accepting the request of the Petitioner for early retirement, is valid. Petitioner challenged the order of termination. Petitioner sought to refrain ICICI from recovering and/or cancelling the benefits granted to the Petitioner for early retirement. Petitioner sought a declaration to exercise the benefits of stock options.

5. The Petition came up on board on 28 November 2019 when it was adjourned to 2 December 2019. On 30 November 2019, ICICI filed a reply, and raised a challenge to the maintainability of the Writ Petition. In this reply, ICICI annexed a communication dated 5 February 2019 addressed to Reserve Bank regarding the termination of the Petitioner’s services. So also the communication of the Reserve Bank dated 13 March 2019 referring to Section 35B(1)(b) of Banking Regulation Act, 1949. When the Petition came up on board on 2 December 2019, the Petitioner sought leave to amend the Petition and challenged the communication of the Reserve Bank dated 13 March 2019. The amendment was allowed by the Division Bench. The objections of the Respondents, including that of the maintainability of the Petition were kept open. By amendment, the Petitioner challenged the approval dated 13 March 2019 of the Reserve Bank. On 9 December 2019, the Division Bench issued notice to the Reserve Bank of India. On 18 December 2019, the Division Bench adjourned the Petition for filing of further replies. Thereafter, the matter is placed before us