The State Bank of India (Supervising Staff) Service Rules, not being framed in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Section 50 of the State Bank of India Act, 1955, lack statutory character, and therefore, a dismissal order issued in violation of such rules cannot be declared void.

( 1 ) THE petitioner Sri K. L. Tripathi was an employee of the State Bank of India. He joined the service of the Slate Bank of India in the year 1955 as an assistant clerk. He was promoted subsequently and at the relevant time, he was working as Branch Manager in the State of India Branch at Deoria. On 19th June, 1975 a chargesheet was issued by the General Manager (Operations) levelling certain charges against the petition and he was required to submit his written statement in defence in terms of Rule 50 of the Service Rules, The petitioner submitted his reply to the chargesheet. The Managing Director, State Bank of India, Central Office, Bombay, by his letter dated 6th October ,1976 informed the petitioner that the Executive Committee of the Central Board at its meeting held on 6th October, 1966 had resolved to dismiss the petitioner with immediate effect in terms of Rule 49 (f) of the State Bank of India (Supervising Staff) Service Rules. A copy of this letter was issued to the petitioner on the 19th of October, 1976. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 6th October, 1976 issued by the Kanpur Local Head Office on the 19th of October, 1976.

( 2 ) THE petitioner has challenged the resolution dated 6th October, 1976 on various grounds relating to violation of Rule 50 of the State Bank of India (Supervising Staff) Service Rules. The contention of the petitioner is that the procedure as prescribed by Rule 50 of the above mentioned rules were not followed in the petitioners case and as such the dismissal order is null and void and he is entitled to a declaration of continuous service in the State Bank of India.

( 3 ) IN U. P. State Wareshousing Corporation Ltd. v. Tyagi the Supreme Court after examining a number of decisions laid down that there are only three well recognised exceptions to the general law under- the law of master and servant where a declaration to the effect that the termination was invalid and void on the ground of non-compliance of the relevant rules could be granted by the Court. The three exceptions are (1) cases of Public servants falling under Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India, (2) cases falling under the Industrial Disputes Law and (3) cases where acts of statutory body are in breach of a mandatory obligation imposed by a statute.

( 4 ) THE petitioner is an employee of the State Bank of India and is not a civil servant and as such Article 311 of the Constitution does not apply. The petitioners case also does not fall under the industrial law. The petitioner is an employee of a statutory body, namely, the State Bank of India which has been constituted under the State Bank of India Act, 1955, The petitioners case could, therefore, fall under third exception only if the State Bank of India has acted in breach of any statutory provision. Unless the petitioner is able to establish that the State Bank of India has committed a breach of any mandatory obligation imposed by a statute he will not be entitled to any declaration which he seeks in this petition. Therefore, we have to examine the question as to whether the State Bank of India (Supervising Staff) Service Rules have statutory character as the sole ground of the petitioners challenge to the validity of the dismissal order in violation of Rule 50 of the above mentioned Rules.

( 5 ) THE State Bank of India was constituted under the State Bank of India Act, 1955. Act 25 of 1955, to carry on the business of banking and other businesses in accordance with the provisions of the Act and for the purposes of taking over the undertaking of the Imperial Bank of India. Under Section 3 of the said Act the State Bank of India is a body corporate with perpetual succession and a common seal in the name of State Bank of India. It has power to acquire and hold properly whether movable or immovable for the purposes for which it is constituted and to dispose of the same. Under Section 17 of the general superintendence and direction of the