- (1.) THE question as to whether a Co-operative Bank is amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court has beers the principal contention raised in this application.
(2.) THE petitioner was appointed as a Supervisor, 24-Parganas Southern central Co-operative Bank Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Bank) in terms of proviso to Rule 6 of the Service rules of the Bank. The Bank is a cooperative Society registered under the bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). The Bank has its area of operation in the whole of sub-division of Sadar and diamond Harbour of the 24-Parganas district. On 2nd of March, 1968, the secretary of the Bank issued a charge sheet calling upon the petitioner to show cause why his service shall not be terminated. The charges framed were of different kinds and included, inter alia, frequent unauthorized absence from headquarter, receiving money from the society by issuing kancha receipts or without receipts, defalcation of money collected from different societies named in the said charge-sheet and also tampering of records of the Society, etc. The petitioner also by that notice was placed under suspension with effect from 1. 3. 1968. An explanation was submitted by the petitioner in reply to the said show cause notice. Thereafter by an order date. 7. 10. 68 the petitioner's services were terminated with effect from 1st march, 1968, as it was alleged that he had been found guilty of gross negligence of duties and he acted in a manner which was prejudicial to the interest of the Bank. The petitioner thereafter has come up against the said order of termination of the service dated 7. 8. 68 and has obtained a rule nisi.
(3.) THE main contention made in this application is that the impugned order of punishment has been made in contravention of Rule 20 (c) of the Service rules framed by the Bank. Under rule 20 (c) of the said Rules, the petitioner's complaint is that he was not afforded an opportunity and all facilities including a personal hearing to defend himself and hence the said order of termination was illegal and void as it was in contravention of the aforesaid rule. Mr. Mazumdar, Counsel for the respondent No. 2, does not dispute that the said order of termination is violative of the aforesaid rule.;