HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No. 28 OF 2020

O R D E R:

Petitioner, a former Staff Assistant at Karimnagar District Cooperative Central Bank Limited who was appointed by direct recruitment with effect from 25.06.2012, filed this Writ Petition seeking issuance of a Writ of Quo-Warranto against the 5th respondent is functioning as In-Charge Chief Executive Officer of the 4^th respondent Bank. It is contended that the 5^th respondent was not appointed as the Chief Executive Officer in accordance with the Service Rules governing such appointments and lacks requisite qualifications mandated for the post. Additionally, petitioner challenges her transfer to Raikal Branch, rejection of her leave extension, suspension and her eventual dismissal from service, alleging that these actions were arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice.

2. Petitioner while serving at Jagityal Branch, was transferred to Raikal Branch situated in a remote location lacking proper commute facilities, under Proceedings dated 20.06.2017, rendering it unfeasible for her to discharge her duties there. She states that she is married to B. Raj Kumar, a Higher Grade Assistant at Life Insurance Corporation of India in Jagityal and has two minor daughters, aged 9 and 4 years. Due to these obligations and logistical difficulties, petitioner is stated to have submitted representation on 22.06.2017 requesting not to give effect to transfer order.

Following the representation, petitioner applied for

15 days leave on 29.06.2017 and prior to completion of the sanctioned period, sought extension of 30 days on 12.07.2017. The Bank rejected extension request through Proceedings dated 15.07.2017, limiting the leave to 16 days. Petitioner contends that this rejection was arbitrary and failed to consider her genuine reasons. Subsequently, the 5^th respondent, through Proceedings dated 04.08.2017, rejected petitioner’s request for reconsideration of transfer. Further, by Proceedings dated 30.08.2017, she was placed under suspension for not reporting to Raikal Branch and thereafter, on 01.02.2018, the Bank issued Proceedings dismissing her from service. Petitioner challenged this dismissal in Writ Petition No. 6421 of 2018, which is pending adjudication.

Petitioner’s primary contention is that the 5th respondent was not appointed as the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the 4^th respondent Bank in accordance with the Service Rules. She relies on Chapter IV and Section 12 of the Service Rules, which stipulate that appointment of CEO must be made by the Management Committee for a term of three years, adhering to "Fit and Proper" guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India. Petitioner cites a recruitment notification issued by the 1^st respondent to the effect that for recruiting CEO, graduate degree with qualifications such as CAIIB, DBF, Diploma in Cooperative Business Management, PGDCRS, or equivalent, and a minimum of eight years’ experience in a senior or middle management cadre in banking, particularly from the third level of scale onwards is necessary.

Petitioner supports her claims with the information obtained under the Right to Information Act, which indicates that the 5th respondent joined the Bank as a Supervisor on 31.07.1986 and was promoted to Staff Assistant, Manager, Assistant General Manager, Deputy General Manager, and General Manager. She asserts that the 5^th respondent was never formally appointed as the CEO and only performed the functions in an in-charge capacity from 25.06.2014, following the retirement of the then Chief Executive Officer, Sri Bhanu Prasad, on 24.06.2014. Petitioner notes that the President of the Bank issued proceedings on 24.06.2014 directing the 5^th respondent to assume charge, but no formal appointment order was issued. She contrasts this with the appointment of Sri Bhanu Prasad, which was formalized by a Board resolution and a presidential order. It is argued that the 5^th respondent’s continuation as CEO af