- (1.) I. M. Qnddnsi, J. By means of the present writ petition the peti tioner has inter alia, challenged the order of termination from service passed by the Chairman, Chhatrasal Gramin Bank, Orai district Jalaun under Regulation 10 (2) (a) of Chhatrasal Gramin Bank Staff Service Regulations, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as the "service Regulations)" and also for a writ of mandamus to declare the provisions of Regulation 10 of the Service Regulations as null and void.
(2.) WE have heard the petitioner Vishnu Prabhakar Misra in person and Sri V. M. Sahai for respondent Nos. 2 to 5. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Field Supervisor in the Chhatrasal Gramin Bank by its Chairman vide order dated 16-4-1985 on probation for a period of two years. It was one of the conditions indicated in the order of appointment of the petitioner that his appointment will be governed by the rules to be framed under Chhatrasal Gramin Back Staff Service Regulations and also the rules prescribed under R. R. B. Act. In pursuance of his appointment he joined on 6-5-1995. During the course of employment some complaints were received against the petitioner with regard to bungling and mis-appropriation of funds and embezzlement as a result of which a preliminary enquiry was got conducted and the enquiry officer submitted his report. On the basis of that report a high power committee consisting of General Manager, Manager (Finance) and Manager Vigilence of the bank was constituted which recom mended the termination of the petitioner's service under Regulation No. 10 (2) (ii) of the Service Regulation, inter alia, holding that the petitioner caused loss to the bank to the extent of Rs. 35,000 and mis-appropriated the amount of fund and his previous conduct was also not good. The Chairman of the bank passed order of termination of the petitioner's services under Regulation 10 (2) (i) of the Service Regulations by tendering emolument in lieu of three months notice.
(3.) THE petitioner preferred an appeal under Regulation 31 fi) against the, impugned order of termination which was rejected by the Board of Directors on 31-12-1990. THE decision of the Board was communicated to the petitioner by the Chairman vide letter dated 6-3-1991. An objection was raised through the counter-affidavit to the effect that the respondent bank is not a 'state' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution but during the course of argument Sri Sahai fairly con ceded that the respondent bank is an instrumentality and thug is a 'state' within the meaning of Article 12 and the writ petition against it is main tainable.;