- (1.) The judgment disposes of Civil Writ Petition Nos. 176 and 2812 of 1985. Reference to relevant facts necessary to resolve the controversy in dispute is made from the pleadings in Civil Writ Petition No. 176 of 1985.
(2.) The petitioner was appointed as a Secretary of respondent No. 2 in the year 1976. He was placed under suspension on 26.2.1983 by the Managing Director. He was charge-sheeted and an enquiry was held as provided under the rules. On receipt of the inquiry report, the Managing Director proposed imposition of penalty of dismissal. The administrative committee, after hearing the petitioner passed an order of dismissal agaisnt the petitioner. The only ground urged in the petition is that the order of dismissal was not passed by a competent authority. To appreciate the contention of the petitoner, a reference to the relevant Rule i.e. Rule 29 of the Haryana State Central Cooperative Banks' Staff Service Rules, 1975 (for short the Rules) wherein the authorities competent to impose the penalties have been specified, may be made. Rule 29 of the abovesaid Rules reads thus : "29. The authorities specified in column 3 below shall in respect of all employees be competent to impose penalties specified in column 2." S.No./Name of penalty Competent authority Appellate authority 1. Censure Manager Board 2. Withholding of increment of efficiency bar -do- -do-. 3. Reduction in the rank removal dismissal termination of a regular employee Appointing Authority Registrar. 4. Other penalties Manager Board. The Board of Directors of respondent No. 2 is the competent authority to order the petitioner's dismissal from service. In the present case, the Board of Directors, at no point of time, had the opportunity to apply its mind to come to the conclusion on the basis of report of the Inquiry Committee that the facts warranted the imposition of penalty of dimissal from service. The Administrative Committee appears to have endorsed the recommendations of teh Managing Director suggesting that penalty of dismissal from service be imposed. The Administrative Commitee cannot attain the character of the Board of Directors. The rule enjoins that the appointing authority has to impose the punishment of dismissal from service. No other authority was competent to do so. In the instant case, the impugned order was passed by the Managing Director of respondent No. 1 who was not competent to do so. Even if the Managing Director has got the order approved by Administrative Committee, it will not be the order passed by the competent authority since the competent authority under the rules is the Board of Directors. The plea taken by the respondents that the Managing Director only recommended that the penalty of dismissal from service be imposed on the petitoner but in fact, the decision was taken by the Administrative Committee appears to be incorrect. The order of dismissal does not indicate that the proposal of the Managing Director regarding imposition of penalty of dismissal from services was accepted by the Administrative Committee. The order is issued under the signatures of the Managing Director. The plea which is now taken in the written statement appears to have been cooked up to defeat the claim of the petitoiner. Respondent No. 2 has not placed the records of the case before me. The minutes of meeting of the Administrative Committee have not been placed on the record. The plea now taken in the written statement appears to be false. The conduct of respondent No. 2 deserves to be deprecated.
(3.) For the reasons aforesaid, both the writ petitons succeed, the orders of dismissal from service of the petitioners passed by the Managing Director of respondent No. 1 are quashed and the petitioners will be taken back in service with all consequential benefits within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No costs.;