The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the authority to accept resignations under Regulation 32 of the Staff Regulations and Clause 64(g) of the Bye-laws.

1. The petitioner was a Staff Officer in Bihar State Co-operative Bank, Patna. He is said to have submitted his resignation on 26.10.2004 which was accepted on the same date i.e. 26.10.2004 by the Managing Director of the Bank, who has been impleaded as Respondent No. 5 in the present writ application.

2. Aggrieved by the said letter dated 26.10.2004 communicating acceptance of the letter of resignation, the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing C.W.J.C. No. 15007 of 2004. This Court dealing with the provision of Regulation 32 of Staff Regulations of the Bank came to a finding that there was no evidence on record to show that the said communication dated 26.10.2004 was approved by the Board as contemplated under Regulation 32. Therefore, so that the management as well as the petitioner could get a fair opportunity, the matter was remitted back to the Board by this Court vide an order dated 26.07.2007 with a direction to the Board to give the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and after examining his submission, coupled with the records which are readily available in the Bank and take a decision in this regard and communicate to the petitioner.

3. The Respondents, in the light of the said order dated 07.08.2007 have taken a decision on 18.02.2008. Pursuant to which an office order dated 02.08.2007 has been issued by the Managing Director and has been communicated Annexure-23 to the writ application.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to confine his submission only to the effect that since the Managing Director did not have the authority to accept the petitioner’s resignation, the effective date of his resignation should be treated as date on which the Board approved the resignation.

5. There is one fact which can be taken note of at this stage itself. Had the petitioner been in service, he would have retired with effect from 31.05.2005. The age of retirement of employees of the Bank was enhanced to 60 years and in that case, he would have superannuated with effect from 31.05.2007.

6. In order to appreciate the legal position, it would be proper to quote Regulation 32 of Staff Regulation which has been brought on record as Annexure-11 to the present writ application, relevant portion of which is as follows:-

“(i) In case of employees holding a post on probation and appointed directly to it, one week’s notice is necessary. In case of confirmed employees, three months’ notice by superior staff and one month’s notice by others is necessary before leaving service. An employee leaving service without giving the notice, as laid down here, or before expiry of the notice shall be liable to pay to the Bank as compensation an amount equal to his pay for the period, or unexpired period of the notice.”

(ii) The following authorities are empowered to accept resignations

Superior staff Board

Ministerial Staff Managing Director

Lower staff Secretary”

7. Evidently, as per Anenxure-11, the Board is empowered to accept resignation whereas in the present case the Managing Director had accepted the resignation.

8. This Court vide order dated 02.08.2007 had asked the Board to examine the petitioner’s submission and take a decision. It was also mentioned that in case it was held that resignation was not in accordance with Regulation of the Bank, the Board would be free to set aside the order dated 26.10.2004.

9. From the Resolution of the Board, it appears that Board relied upon Clause 64(g) of the Bye-laws of the Bank justifying the action of the Managing Director in accepting the petitioner’s resignation. Clause 64(g) of the Bye-laws reads thus:-

“64. Subject to control of the Board, the Managing Director Shall-

a) .......

b) .......

c) .......

d) ……

e) .......

f) .......

g) anticipate Board’s decision in matters that cannot wait for a Board’s meeting without prejudice to the interest of the Bank, provided that in all such matters the Chairman’s approval, if possible, shall be taken and all matters decided by the Managing Director in