B.J.SHETHNA, J. - (1.) THE petitioner, who was working as Manager of the respondent Cooperative Bank, has challenged in this petition the impugned order of termination dated 26.4.2000 (Annx. 1), whereby his services were terminated as Manager.
(2.) MR . D.K. Gaur, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that without affording any opportunity of hearing the impugned order at Annx. 1 was passed, which is in clear violation of principles of natural justice, therefore, the same may be set aside. This submission of Mr. Gaur has no substance because from the impugned order at Annx. 1 it is clear that the petitioner was given enough opportunities to present his case but he has not utilized the opportunities offered to him. Mr. Gaur then submitted that the Executive Officer of the respondent Bank had no jurisdiction to terminate his services. He submitted that only authority competent to terminate his services was the Managing Director, therefore, the impugned order at Annx. 1 passed by the Executive Officer is without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside. When asked, he was unable to make his submission good. He was asked to produce his appointment order but he was not having the same with him. Merely raising a contention that the authority which has passed the order of termination had no jurisdiction would not make the case of the petitioner good. The submission has to be substantiated by material in the form of Rules or documents, which are lacking in this case. Unless and until, it is otherwise proved, there is no reason for this Court to come to a different conclusion that the Executive Officer, who has passed the order of termination had no jurisdiction.
(3.) IN view of the above discussion, I do not find any substance or merit in this case. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed.;