R K MANI SINGH Vs. IMPHAL URBAN CO OP BANK LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the retirement order dated 31 st May, 1997 issued by the President, Imphal Urban Co-Operative Bank Limited.

(2.) The facts briefly are that the petitioner was serving as General Manager of the Imphal Urban Co-Operative Bank Limited (for short, "the Co-Operative Bank"). On 31.5.97, the President of the Co-Operative Bank issued the impugned retirement order. In the said impugned retirement order it has been stated that in the meeting of the Board of Directors of the Co- Operative Bank held on 20.5.97 the petitioner exhibited a lack of respect or acknowledgment of the authority of the Board when the Director Sri Kh. Bijoy Singh wanted to know why the petitioner had released one seized Bull Dozer which was valued at Rs. 10 lacs to a loanee Sri Thangkhenkhup who had defaulted an amount of Rs. 50 lacs without the order of the Board, and in that meeting of the Board the petitioner attempted to assault the said Director Sri Kh. Bijoy Singh and shouted some derogatory words. In the impugned retirement order, certain findings have been recorded with regard to the release of seized Bull Dozer on 10.5.97 by the petitioner without the order of the Board, with regard to the attempted assault on the Director Sri Kh. Bijoy Singh in the Board's meeting held on 20.5.97 and with regard to the failure on the part of the petitioner to place R.B.I's. instructions dated 21.9.93 and 13.5.94 before the Board of Directors. In the impugned retirement order, it has further been stated that in view of these facts and circumstances the Board of Directors of the Co-operative Bank was of the view that the petitioner would not render useful service to the Bank after divestment of his sanctioning powers under the R.B.I's. instructions ;that he would not be fit to continue his services under the Board and that it would be good for the petitioner and for the Board of Directors if the option to retire under Rule 12 of the Staff Regulations of the Co-operative Bank was expressed from either side. Finally, in the impugned retirement order it has been stated that the Board of Directors of the Co-operative Bank has resolved to exercise its power under Rule 12 of the Staff Regulations and to issue retirement order under the said rule for administrative reasons with immediate effect from 31.5.97. It has however been stated in the impugned retirement order that the retirement order would not effect the monetary benefits earned by the petitioner for good senvices he had rendered and pay and allowances upto 31.8.97.

(3.) A preliminary objection was raised on behalf of respondents 1,2 and 5 that the Co- Operative Bank was not a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and that the writ petition challenging the impugned retirement order dated 31.5.97 was not maintainable as against the said respondents. In support of the aforesaid contention relating to maintainability of the writ petition, the said respondents 1,2 and 5 relied on the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in Civil Rule Nos. 14/96 and 140/96. But the learned Single Judge hearing the present Civil Rule held in his order dated 3.7.97 that according to him a Co-operative Bank registered under the ManipurCo-operative Societies Act, 1976, was an instrumentality of the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and directed that the matter be placed before the Division Bench for consideration. Thereafter, the matter has been referred to this Division Bench by the Hon'ble Chief Justice for disposal.