IMPORTANT POINT
An employee's dismissal must be executed by the competent authority and follow due process, including adherence to principles of natural justice.

JUDGMENT :

1. By way of present petition, the petitioner herein has challenged the dismissal order bearing Reference No.GM/52/PST/5518, dated 11.01.2011 issued by the respondent No.2.

2. Heard Mr. D.G. Shukla, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Aadit R. Sanjanwala, learned advocate appearing for the respondent Nos.2 and 4 and Mr. Darshan M. Parikh, learned advocate appearing for the respondent No.3.

3. It is the case of the petitioner herein that the petitioner was initially temporarily appointed as an Apprentice Junior Clerk with effect from 10.06.1994 for a period of six months by the respondent No.2, later on confirmed on 06.03.1995 by the Board on the post of Junior Clerk at Surat Branch. The said orders are duly produced at Annexure – A colly.

3.1 The petitioner was promoted to the post of Junior Officer by the Board on 29.07.2003. The petitioner was assigned additional powers of Assistant Manager on 30.04.2005 initially, for a period of six months, which was further extended from time to time till 30.04.2009 by the respondent No.2. The said communications are duly produced at Annexure – B and Annexure – C colly.

3.2 Because of some under-statement of financial data in the balance sheet and net worth of the bank; not being fully reflected and due to suspicion of fraud in the business of respondent No.2 – bank, the Reserve Bank of India vide order dated 23.01.2009 superseded the Board of Directors of the respondent No.2 under the provisions of Section 36AAA of Banking Regulations Act, 1949 (for short ‘the Act’). By order dated 23.01.2009, the Executive Director of the Reserve Bank of India issued certain directions to the respondent No.2 under Section 35A read with Section 56 of the Act. The business of the respondent No.2 was put under moratorium by the Reserve Bank of India on even date i.e. 23.01.2009, which came to be subsequently modified on 26.01.2009 and to be continued under the supervision of the Administrator – Respondent No.1 herein.

3.3 It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent No.2 being the General Manager and Chief Executive Officer of the bank, subsequent to the order dated 23.01.2009; having handed over the charge to the respondent No.1, could not have exercised the powers vested in him prior to 23.01.2009. The respondent No.2 was required to only assist and provide necessary support to the respondent No.1 in discharging the duties.

3.4 It is the case of the petitioner that the impugned order of dismissal dated 11.01.2011 is issued by the respondent No.2 duly produced at page 87, Annexure – P, in the capacity as General Manager of the respondent No.2 – bank. It is further the case of the petitioner that it was not competent for the respondent No.2 to issue the aforesaid order when the Administrator had taken over the management of the bank as back as on 23.01.2009. It is also the case of the petitioner that the impugned order of dismissal dated 11.01.2011, as referred above, is without following the principles of natural justice or initiation of any inquiry against the petitioner to arrive at the alleged misconduct pursuant to the show cause notice issued to the petitioner on 11.08.2009 for commission of act of misconduct involving willful insubordination and habitual absence without leave. It is submitted that on the aforesaid ground also, the impugned order of dismissal of the petitioner dated 11.01.2011 is required to be interfered with; the same having been passed without following due procedure.

4. Mr. D.G. Shukla, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, substantiated the aforesaid facts and placed reliance on the order passed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No.275 of 2011 in the case of another employee, who was similarly situated as that of the petitioner wherein, the Bombay High Court while passing the said order, initially pending the said proceedings, held that once the Administrator was appointed, it was not open for the CEO of the respondent – bank to