Back
2024 Supreme(All) 457
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Arun Bhansali, CJ., Attau Rahman Masoodi, J.
Ms. Manjari Singh - Appellant
Vs.
Union Of India Thru. Its Secy. Ministry Of Finance Govt. Of India, New Delhi And Others - Respondent
Special Appeal No. - 34 of 2024
Decided On : 21-02-2024
For the Appellant : Alok Mishra
For the Respondent: A.S.G.I., Avinash Chandra, Saurabh Misra
IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the termination of services must comply with the provisions of Regulation 20 of the Indian Overseas Bank (Officers') Service Regulations, 1979, and that the availability of alternative remedy should be considered before seeking judicial intervention.
Headnote:
Regulation 20 - Termination of Services - Indian Overseas Bank (Officers') Service Regulations, 1979 - [20(1)(a), 20(1)(b), 20(1)(c), 20(1)(d)] - The court discussed the provisions of Regulation 20 of the Indian Overseas Bank (Officers') Service Regulations, 1979, which govern the termination of services of an officer. The court emphasized the requirement of giving a reasonable opportunity for representation before termination, the authority vested in the Chairman and Managing Director to make the decision for termination, and the right of the officer to appeal to the Board of Directors against the termination order.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant-petitioner's services were terminated by the respondent-Bank under Regulation 20(1)(a) and (b) of the Indian Overseas Bank (Officers') Service Regulations, 1979. The appellant-petitioner challenged the termination through writ petitions, and the court set aside the termination orders. However, the respondent-Bank issued a fresh termination order, leading to the current appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the termination order was in accordance with Regulation 20(1)(a) of the Regulations, 1979, and that the appellant-petitioner had the remedy to file an appeal before the Board of Directors of the Bank. The court dismissed the petition, but allowed the appellant-petitioner to file an appeal within 15 days, directing the appellate authority to pass a detailed speaking order within two months.
Issues: The issues included the legality of the termination, the availability of alternative remedy, and the compliance with the principles of natural justice.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the termination order was in accordance with the Regulations, 1979, and that the appellant-petitioner had the opportunity to appeal before the Board of Directors. The court also emphasized that the availability of alternative remedy was not denied and that the previous alleged mistakes by the authority did not justify bypassing the remedy.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, but the appellant-petitioner was allowed to file an appeal within 15 days, and the appellate authority was directed to pass a detailed speaking order within two months.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri Alok Mishra, learned Counsel for the appellant-petitioner, Sri Saurabh Misra, learned Counsel appearing for the Union of India/respondent No.1 and Sri Avinash Chandra, learned Counsel appearing for the bank-respondent Nos. 2 to 6
2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 17.01.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby on account of availability of alternative remedy to the appellant-petitioner, the writ petition filed by him has been dismissed.
3. The appellant-petitioner was issued a notice of termination dated 17.07.2021 by the respondent-Bank under Regulation 20 (1)(a) and (b) of the Indian Overseas Bank (Officers') Service Regulations, 1979 [here-in-after referred to as 'Regulations, 1979']. The appellant-petitioner responded to the said notice on 10.08.2021. By order dated 01.02.2022, the services of the appellant-petitioner were terminated. The order was passed by the General Manager whereafter the appeal filed by the appellant-petitioner also came to be rejected by the Board of Directors.
4. Thereafter, the appellant-petitioner filed Writ-A No.4643 of 2023. After hearing the parties, the said writ petition came to be allowed and the termination order dated 01.02.2022, passed by the General Manager and the appellate order dated 02.06.2023 came to be set aside and the Court came to the conclusion that the order of termination could only be passed by the Chairman and Managing Director, whereas the said power was purportedly delegated by him.
5. The learned Single Judge has also directed that consequences shall follow and kept it open to the Bank to proceed against the appellant-petitioner in accordance with Regulations, 1979 and in accordance with law. Pursuant to the said order, the respondents have passed a fresh order dated 12.09.2023 again terminating the services of the appellant-petitioner in view of the provisions of Regulation 20(1)(a) of the Regulations, 1979.
6. Feeling aggrieved, when the appellant-petitioner approached this court by filing Writ-A No.299 of 2024, learned Single Judge came to the following conclusion:-
"Against the impugned order dated 12.9.2023 passed by the Managing Director & Chief Executive Officer, Indian Overseas Bank terminating the services of the petitioner from the Bank, the petitioner has the remedy to file an appeal before the Board of Directors of the Bank under Regulation 20 (1)(d) of the Indian Overseas Bank (Officers') Service Regulations, 1979.
In view of the availability of alternative remedy to the petitioner, it is not a case for consideration by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India at this stage.
The petition is dismissed.
In case the petitioner files an appeal within 15 days from today, the same shall be decided by the Board of Directors on merits expeditiously."
7. Learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner has made vehement submission that the learned Single Judge was not justified in dismissing the petition based on availability of alternative remedy. Submissions were made that once the order dated 01.02.2022 and the appellant order dated 02.06.2023 were set aside by this Court in the earlier round of litigations, the respondents were required to give a fresh notice to the appellant-petitioner and that without issuing a fresh notice to the appellant-petitioner, the respondents could not have passed the order impugned. It is alleged that the appellant-petitioner was not afforded any opportunity of hearing and, therefore, the said reason was sufficient for the appellant-petitioner to seek bypassing of the availability of alternative remedy. Submissions were also made that the action of the respondent-Bank in not following the provisions of Regulation 20(1)(e) which requires the Bank to re-instate the appellant-petitioner on setting aside of the appellate order is also clearly mala fide. Submissions were also made that on earlier occasion, while the appeal of the appellant-petitioner was pending before the appellate authorit
