- (1.) The respondent served in different capacities in Osmanabad Janata Sehkari Bank Ltd., Osmanabad (for short, "the Bank") since 1972. On attaining the age of 58 years, he stood superannuated in June 2004. The Managing Committee of the Bank, however, extended service of the respondent for a further period of two years and after completion of one year, he sought leave of the Bank to be allowed to retire as he was in ill-health and accordingly he retired in the month of June, 2005. As the factual matrix would unveil, he was appointed as an Accountant in the Bank in the year 1972 and was promoted to the post of Manager in 1981 and eventually to the post of General Manager, which post he held till his retirement. Be it stated, while he was in service, he received a notice signed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Osmanabad requiring him to give details of the property acquired by him. In response to the said letter, the respondent on 15.2.2001 replied that the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, "the 1988 Act") was not applicable to him. After his superannuation, he received two letters from the same investigating authority to attend an enquiry so that his statement could be recorded in respect of his properties and expenditure, to which he replied. Thereafter, he preferred Criminal Writ Petition No. 729 of 2006 before the High Court of Judicature of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, assailing the notices which were in the realm of investigation.
(2.) The principal plank of submission in the writ petition was that he was not a public servant as defined under sub-section (c) of Section 2 of 1988 Act and he cannot by any means of interpretation of Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) be treated as such. On behalf of the State and the investigating agency it was contended that the writ petitioner would come under the definition of public servant as per Section 2(c) (iii) and (ix) of the 1988 Act. It was also urged that the Bank is governed by Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 (for short, "the 2002 Act") inasmuch as it has been registered as a multi-state cooperative bank on 12.7.2000. Reliance was also placed on Section 56 of the Banking Regulations Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to "the 1949 Act") for the purpose of bolstering the stand in view of the amendment to Section 56, the provisions of the 1949 Act would be applicable to the cooperative bank. It was also highlighted that as per the 1949 Act, the Reserve Bank of India has direct control and supervision over the cooperative banks and the same is evincible from Section 35A and 26 of the 1949 Act. In addition to the aforesaid, emphasis was laid on Section 122 and 123 of the 2002 Act to highlight the power of the Central Government to issue directions to the multi-state cooperative banks is in public interest.
(3.) The High Court referred to certain provisions of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (for short "the 1960 Act"), 2002 Act, 1988 Act and 1949 Act, took note of the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner which was to the effect that there is no control of the State Government or the Central Government or any other authority on the functioning of the Bank and, therefore, he could not be termed as a public servant, as is defined under the 1988 Act, and perused the bye-laws of the Bank on the bedrock of various provisions of different Acts which have been referred to hereinbefore; and thereafter referring to the decisions rendered in S.S. Rana v. Registrar, Coop. Societies & Anr., 2006 11 SCC 634, Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi, 1981 1 SCC 722, Zoroastrain Coop. Housing Society Ltd. v. District Registrar, Coop. Societies (Urban) & Ors., 2005 5 SCC 632, State of Maharashtra v. Laljit Rajshi Shah, 2000 AIR(SC) 937, Ramesh Balkrishna Kulkarni v. State of Maharashtra, 1985 3 SCC 606, Federal Bank Ltd. v. Sagar Thomas, 2003 AIR(SC) 4325 came to hold that so far as the Bank is concerned, the Central Government has not purchased any share of the Bank.;