Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
S.K.Das and Choudhary JJ.
Chaturbhuj Sahai
Versus
Chairman, Board Of Directors, Bihar State Co Operative Bank Ltd.
Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 248 of 1954 ;
Decided On : FEBRUARY 04, 1955
RETIREMENT - TERMINATION OF SERVICE - BIHAR AND ORISSA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1935 - BYE-LAW 36(F) - STAFF REGULATIONS - ARTICLE 311 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - ARTICLE 19(1) (G) OF THE CONSTITUTION - ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONSTITUTION - ARTICLE 19(6) OF THE CONSTITUTION - WHETHER THE SERVICES OF THE PETITIONER WERE TERMINATED ILLEGALLY - WHETHER THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS HAD POWER AND AUTHORITY TO TERMINATE THE SERVICES OF THE PETITIONER - WHETHER THE PETITIONER HOLDS A CIVIL POST UNDER THE STATE OF BIHAR - WHETHER THE SERVICE OF THE PETITIONER WAS AN OCCUPATION OF THE KIND CONTEMPLATED IN CLAUSE (G) OF ARTICLE 19(1).
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an assistant in the Supply & Price Control Department of the Government of Bihar, was appointed as a temporary Inspector, called Credit Agricole Inspector, under the Provincial Co-operative Bank (now called the Bihar State Co-operative Bank, Ltd.) at Patna. On 31-1-1954, the Board of Directors of the Bank passed a resolution retrenching the posts of eight Inspectors, including that of the petitioner, due to the heavy shrinkage in the trading activities of the Bank. The petitioner challenged the termination of his services, contending that it was illegal and without authority.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Board of Directors had the power and authority to terminate the services of the petitioner on the ground of shrinkage of business, as per Bye-law 36(f) of the Bank and the Staff Regulations. The court also held that the petitioner did not hold a civil post under the State of Bihar and, therefore, Article 311 of the Constitution of India did not apply. The court further held that the service of the petitioner was not an occupation of the kind contemplated in Clause (g) of Article 19(1) of the Constitution and that the bye-law or staff Regulations under which the petitioner was removed were not unreasonable restrictions and were saved under Clause (6) of Article 19.
Issues: 1. Whether the termination of the petitioner's services was illegal and without authority. 2. Whether the Board of Directors had the power and authority to terminate the services of the petitioner. 3. Whether the petitioner held a civil post under the State of Bihar. 4. Whether the service of the petitioner was an occupation of the kind contemplated in Clause (g) of Article 19(1) of the Constitution. 5. Whether the bye-law or staff Regulations under which the petitioner was removed were unreasonable restrictions and not saved under Clause (6) of Article 19.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Board of Directors had the power and authority to terminate the services of the petitioner on the ground of shrinkage of business, as per Bye-law 36(f) of the Bank and the Staff Regulations. 2. The petitioner did not hold a civil post under the State of Bihar and, therefore, Article 311 of the Constitution of India did not apply. 3. The service of the petitioner was not an occupation of the kind contemplated in Clause (g) of Article 19(1) of the Constitution. 4. The bye-law or staff Regulations under which the petitioner was removed were not unreasonable restrictions and were saved under Clause (6) of Article 19.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed with costs.
1. The petitioner is one Chaturbhu) Sahai. He was an assistant in the Supply & Price Control Department of the Government of Bihar, but sometime in November, 1949, he was appointed a temporary Inspector, called Credit Agricole Inspector, under the Provincial Co-operative Bank (now called the Bihar State Co-operative Bank, Ltd.) at Patna. The petitioner says that he gave UD Government service and joined his new post on 26-11-1949. He was then sent for training, after the completion of which he was posted at Katihar, which post he joined on 4-2-1950. On 31-1-1954, the Board of Directors of the Bihar State Cooperative Bank, Ltd. passed a resolution by which the posts of eight Inspectors, including that of Sri Chaturbhuj Sahai, were retrenched. The reason given was the heavy shrinkage in the trading activities of the Bank, some of which had come to a complete cessation. In pursuance of the said resolution of the Board of Directors of the Bank, the Secretary of the Bank communicated to the petitioner by means of a letter dated 13-2-1954, that the petitioners services were terminated with immediate effect, and that in lieu of three months notice he would be given three months pay. This letter was despatched on 15-2-1954, and was received by the petitioner on 18-2-1954. The petitioner, it is stated, made over charge on 28-2-1954. On 26-2-1954, the Board of Directors confirmed the resolution which they had passed on 31-1-1954, and mentioned the petitioner by name as one of the eight persons whose posts had been retrenched and whose services were no longer required.
2. On behalf of the petitioner it is contended that his services have been terminated by the Bank illegally and without authority. The petitioner has, therefore, prayed for a writ to be issued against the Chairman and Managing Directors of the Bihar State Co-operative Bank for reinstatement of the petitioner to the post of a Credit Agricole Inspector or to any other post on the same pay and in the same grade in which he was working on 15-2-1954. The application is contested by the Opposite party, namely, the Bihar State Co-operative Bank, Ltd.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged the following points in support of the petition. We are stating the points in seriatim first, and shall then consider them one by one. firstly, it is contended that the services of the petitioner were terminated illegally with effect from 15-2-1954, though the resolution purporting to terminate the services of the petitioner was passed by the Board of Directors on a later date, namely, 26-2-1954. Secondly, it is contended that under the Staff Regulations in force in the Cooperative Bank, the petitioner could not be removed without the approval of tthe Registrar of Co-operative Societies, and as no such approval was obtained Before the termination of his services, the order was illegal. Thirdly, it is contended that the petitioner held a civil post under the State of Bihar and he could not be removed from service without giving him a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken in regard to him, as laid down in Clause (2) of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. Fourthly, it is contended that under cl, (g) of Article 19(1) of the Constitution, the petitioner who is a citizen, of India, has the right to carry on his occupation of a Credit Agricole Inspector, and the Regulation or bye-law of the Bank under which he has been removed from service without giving him an opportunity of showing cause Is void under Article 13 of the Consti-.tution, because it is not saved under Clause (6) of Article 19 of the Constitution.
4. We now propose to consider these points in the order in which we have stated them. As to the first point, it is clear from the materials before us that the Board of Directors passed a resolution on 31-1-1954, to the following effect:
"The office note for the retrenchment of the eight Inspectors was considered and it was approved
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
