Man Singh vs The Ambala Central Co-operative Bank Ltd.

S.S. Sudhalkar, J.—Petitioner Man Singh was appointed as Secretary in the respondent-Bank on 9.9.1976. On 24.3.1996, he tendered his resignation which was accepted on 30.3.1996 with effect from 29.3.1996. It is an admitted fact that this resignation was given to enable the petitioner to contest the Assembly Election.

On 11.5.1996, the petitioner withdrew resignation. By its resolution dated 31.1.1997, Annexure P2, respondent-Bank resolved to allow withdrawal of resignation subject to approval of the Registrar, Co-operative Societies (hereinafter referred to as the Registrar). It was also resolved that the intervening period from the date of resignation to the date of joining will be treated as (leave) without pay. Vide memo dated 22.4.1997, petitioner was appointed as Secretary but subject to approval of Board of Directors of the Bank. He joined as such pursuant to order dated 25.4.1997, copy annexure P8.

In the meeting of 29.4.1998 of the Board of Directors of the Bank, it was resolved to give fresh appointment to the petitioner as a Secretary and it was also resolved that prior approval of the Registrar be obtained. It may be mentioned that by letter dated 11.4.1997, copy Annexure P3, the Registrar had written to the Managing Director of respondent No. 1 that action may be taken in accordnace with the instructions of the Chief Secretary dated 21.1.1996. The said instructions are at Annexure P4. According to the instructions the policy decision of the Government has been conveyed. The policy was "that employees who leave Government service to take part in elections will not be re-appointed to their original service thereafter. As ordinary citizens they will, however, be eligible for applying for jobs in the Government, but they will not enjoy continuity of service from their previous employment." The Registrar, vide memo dated 28.7.1998, copy Annexure P16, had conveyed to the Managing Director that permission for appointment of Man Singh petitioner could not be granted.

In the short reply by the Additional Registrar, it has been mentioned that according to the instructions of the Chief Secretary dated 21.11.1996, if any person resigns from service to contest Assembly Election and is unsuccessful and then he makes a request for re-entry into service, he cannot be allowed to rejoin the service with benefits of past service including continuity of service etc.

By memo dated 22.12.1997, copy Annexure P11, the petitioner was relieved from service with immediate effect because the Board of Directors had not confirmed the action of the Managing Director. The memo being short one can be re-produced as under :-

"Memo.

It is to inform you that you were appointed in the Bank as Secretary vide this office letter No. E. 02/97-981437 dated 24.4.1997 subject to the approval of the Board of Directors. As such your case was placed before the Board of Directors meeting on 27.8.1997 for confirmation of the action of the worthy Managing Director of the Bank. The Board of Directors vide resolution No. 12 has considered and action of the Managing Director is not confirmed. So, in view of the resolution passed by the Board of Directors, you are hereby relieved from the Bank services with immediate effect. You are directed to hand over the complete charge to the E.O. concerned."

Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition with a prayer to set aside Annexures P11 and P16.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

The facts are not in dispute. The counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Registrar had earlier directed to take action according to instructions, Annexure P4 and, therefore, he could not decline the request of re-entry of the petitioner in the service of the Bank. He has also argued that the Board of Directors having approved re-entry of the petitioner, the action of the Managing Director was not proper. He also argued that the Registrar had no jurisdiction in the matter.

We may not, in this writ petition, go into the jurisdiction of the Registrar because in this case the Registrar had given approval subject to instructions, Annexure P4. The question now remains is whether the respondents were justified in passing orders, Annexures P11 and P16. The answer of this question has to be given in the affirmative. The Managing Director had recommended re-entry of the petitioner after the Board of Directors had approved it. The Registrar directed the Bank to follow instructions, Annexure P4 which did not prohibit permission of re-entry into service of the Bank. This being the position, it is not shown as to how the whole thing turned the other way. We, therefore, do not find any justification in passing impugned orders Annexures Pt 1 and P16 which are hereby quashed and the petitioner shall be deemed to be in service of respondent-Bank with effect from 29.4.1998. The consequential benefits available to the petitioner with effect from 29.4.1998 shall follow. The re-joining, of course, shall be subject to instructions, Annexure P4.

The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.

Petition allowed.