United Bank of India Officers'' Association and Others vs United Bank of India and Another

Chittatosh Mookerjee, J.—The petitioner No. 1 claims to be the Trade Union of the Officers of the respondent no. 1, United Bank of India. The petitioners 2 to 6 are members of the petitioner no. 1 and also are Officers of the respondent no. 1 Bank. With effect from 14th February, 1970, undertakings of fourteen existing Banks including United Bank of India were transferred to and vested in the Corresponding New Banks under the Banking Companies. (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1970. The entire capital of the said Corresponding Banks stood vested in arid allotted to the Central Government In exercise of the powers conferred by section 19 of the said Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1970, the Board of Directors of the respondent No. 1, Bank, have purported to make United Bank of India Officer Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1976 (hereinafter briefly called Conduct Regulations, 1976) and the United Bank of India Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 (hereinafter briefly called Discipline and Appeal Regulations, 1976). Both the Regulations were to come into force on 1st January, 1977. On July 13, 1979, the petitioners have obtained the present Rule, Inter alia, challenging the validity of the aforesaid Conduct Regulations, 1976 and of the Discipline and appeal Regulations, 1976 of the United Bank of India, the respondent no. 1.

Mr. Pranab Chatterjee, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners, inter-alia, has submitted that the aforesaid two Regulations are ultra vires sections 12(2) and 19 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1970. According to Mr. Chatterjee, the respondent no. 1, Bank, had no authority to alter the existing terms and conditions of its officers by framing the aforesaid two Regulations. Mr. Chatterjee hag, next submitted, that, the said two Regulations were invalid also because the condition-precedents mentioned in Section 19 of the said Act for making regulations have not been fulfilled. Mr. Chatterjee has thirdly submitted that the provisions of the said Conduct Regulations, 1976 and the Discipline and Appeal Regulations, 1976 hereinafter mentioned are repugnant to Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution and are, therefore, invalid and uninforceable. Mr. Subrata Roy Chowdhury, learned advocate on behalf of the respondent no. 1, Bank, and Mr. Somendra Chandra Bose, learned Advocate on behalf of the Union of India have, on the other hand, submitted that the respondent no. 1, under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1970 had authority to alter the terms and conditions of employment of its officers and the two impugned Regulations have been duly made by the United Bank of India after consultation with the Reserve Bank of India and with the previous sanction of the Central Government. Therefore, the two Regulations are not ultra vires sections 12(2) and 19 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1970. The learned advocates for the respondents have also submitted that the provisions of the said Conduct Regulations and Discipline and Appeal Regulations, 1976 are broadly similar to other Regulations applicable to government servants and employees of various public undertakings. None of these provisions are ultra vires Article 14 and 19 of the Constitution and they impose reasonable restrictions upon the officers of the respondent no. 1, Bank.

The Bank of India Officers'' Association (Madhya Pradesh) and three others had moved the High Court of Madhya Pradesh under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of similar Conduct Regulations and Discipline and Appeal Regulations made for the officers of the Bank of India. A Division Bench of the said High Court partly allowed the said petition and declaring invalid the Regulation 7 of the Bank of India Officer Employees'' (Conduct) Regulations, 1976 except the portion which prohibits officers of the Bank from making public or publishing any official document or information. The said Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court rejected all other contentions raised regarding the validity of the said two Regulations.

A learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court by his judgment dated 5th August, 1980 in writ petition Nos. 3367 of 1977 and 3563 of 1977 (D. Padamanabhan vs. Indian Overseas Bank) has struck down Regulations 6(6) and 6(7) of the Indian Overseas Bank Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations but has upheld the validity of the rest of the two Regulations framed for officer employees of the said Bank.

After I had reserved my judgment, the respondents have filed before me the unreported decision of Lentin, J. of the Bombay High Court dismissing Misc. Petition No. 1054 of 1977 filed by J. G. Savant vs. Central Bank of India. The learned Judge has upheld the validity of all the provisions of the Central Bank of India Officer Employees (Conduct Regulations) and of the Central Bank of India Officer Employees Discipline and Appeal Regulations.

I find no substance in the submission that the United'' Bank of India had no authority to make the aforesaid two Regulations. The officers and employees of the existing Banks, who by operation of sub-section (2) of section 12 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1970 became officers and employees of the corresponding Bank continued to enjoy their existing remuneration and other terms and conditions of their services until the same would be ''duly altered''. The expression ''duly altered'' in sub-section (2) of section 12 of the said Act means ''to change in due compliance with the legal formalities'', Thus the terms and conditions of services of officers and employees whose services were taken over, u/s 12(2) of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1970 could be changed in a lawful manner. There is no provision in the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1970 which prohibits a corresponding Bank from either prescribing or from altering the terms and conditions of services of its officers who have been appointed after nationalisation of the said Bank. On other hand, section of the said Act expressly confers power to make regulations in the said subject.

In the absence of any provision in this behalf I am not prepared to accept Mr. Chatterjee''s contention, that, conditions of service of the officers of the Bank, the respondent No. 1, could be altered only by mutual agreement between the Bank and its officer employees. The provisions of section 12(2) and of section 19(1) and (2) of the said Act ought to be harmoniously read. Thus, sub-sections (1) of section 19 of the said act prescribes, the legal formalities for making regulations inter-alia for altering their conditions of service and prescribing for them the rules of conduct and the procedure for imposing penalties etc.

In Order to provide for matters for which provision is expedient for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of the Act, the Board of Directors of a corresponding Bank u/s 19 of the Banking. Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1970 may make Regulations after consultation with the Reserve Bank and with the previous sanction of the Central Government. Mr. Chatterjee, learned Advocate for the petitioners, has not disputed that the matters enumerated in sub-section (2) of Section 19 of the said Act are without prejudice to the generality of the powers under sub-section (1) and, therefore, the sub-section (2) does not curtail or limit the width of the power given u/s (1) of section 19 of the said Act to make Regulations. Further, sub-section (2) of section 19 of the Act has laid down that the regulations may provide for all or any of the Mi-owing matters, namely,

(a)........

(b)........

(c)........

(d) the conditions or limitations subject to which the corresponding new bank may appoint advisers, officers or other employees and fix their remuneration and other terms and conditions of service;

(e) the duties and conduct of advisers, officers or other employees of the corresponding new bank;

(m) generally for the efficient conduct of the affairs of the corresponding new bank;

The next pertinent question is whether the aforesaid conditions laid down in sub-section (1) of section 19 of the Act were complied with for making the two impugned Regulations. Mr. Chatterjee, learned advocate for the petitioner, has contended that there was no consultation between the respondent no. 1, Bank, on the one hand, and the Reserve Bank of India, on the other, in terms of section 19(1) of the Act. Mr. Chatterjee has secondly submitted that it was not the respondent no. 1, Bank but the Central Government itself which had framed the two Regulation

In. order-to examine the merits of the aforesaid contentions, it is necessary to briefly set out the facts and circumstances relating to the making of the aforesaid Regulations. Prior to the nationalisation, two Industrial Awards, known respectively as Shastri Award and Desal Award, were made in respect of workmen employees of the different Commercial Banks including the fourteen banks which were thereafter nationalised. Both before and after nationalisation, Bipartite Settlements were also made between the different Banks including the United Bank of India and their workmen employees. The aforesaid Awards or the Industrywide Bipartite Settlement which brought about uniformity of conditions of service of workmen employees. According to the respondents, necessity was felt of prescribing uniform, regulations for officers employed in the different nationalised banks. After the Banking Service Commission had studied the question, the Central Government had decided to intimate proposals for framing uniform sets of Conduct Regulations and Discipline and Appeal Regulations for the officers employed in the nationalised banks.

On 14th September, 1973 the Under Secretary of the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Banking had written a letter to the Chairman and the General Manager of the United Bank of India, Calcutta on the subject of ''preparation of Conduct Rules for officers of the nationalised banks-requirement u/s 19(2) (a) of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1970. The said Secretary of the Government of India had, inter-alia, referred to the provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 19 of the said Act and had stated that, for some time past, the Government had been considering the question of framing one set of Conduct Rules common for all the nationalised banks. The Central Vigilance Commission had been also stressing the need for public sector banks having uniform sets of Conduct and Discipline Rules. In his said letter, the Deputy Secretary of Government of India on served that while the special character of the banking industry had to be recognised and taken note of, it was felt that the Conduct Rules of the bank employees should be in the tune with their status as employees of public sector institutions wholly owned by the Central Government. A copy of the Draft. Conduct Rules prepared by the Department of Banking, Ministry of Finance was enclosed for comments and suggestions by the bank. The said Under Secretary in his letter also mentioned that what was required at that stage was only comments and views of the management of the banks and their was no need to trouble the Boards for the time being regarding the provisions of the draft rules. After comments of the management would be received, the same were proposed to be examined by Government in consultation with the Central Vigilance Commission before the draft of, the rules are finalised. The said Rules when finalised would be forwarded to fourteen nationalised banks for seeking approval of the Boards in terms of the provisions contained in the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1970. The said Under Secretary of the Government of India by another letter dated September 21, 1973 had requested the Chairman and the Managing Director of the United Bank of India to forward a copy of his comments on the said Conduct Rules to Reserve Bank of India also.

After obtaining extension of. time, on 3rd December, 1973 the Manager, Personal Department, United Bank of India, had sent to the Ministry of Finance, Department of Banking, their comments and suggestions on the some of the clauses of the draft Conduct Rules copy of the said letter was sent to the Reserve Bank of India. The respondent no. 1, Bank, hag annexed, to its affidavit-in-opposition affirmed by Sourendra Nath Ghosh, a copy of the said letter dated December 3, 1973 and Bank''s comments and suggestions made on some of the clauses of the draft Conduct Rules.

On 14th October, 1974 the Central Government forwarded a copy of the draft Discipline and Appeal Regulations to the United Bank of India with a similar requests to send its comments. On 7th November, 1974 the United Bank of India submitted its comments and suggestions regarding the said draft Discipline and Appeal Regulations. On 25th October, 1975 the Central Government, by, a letter, informed the respondent no. 1, Bank, that, based on the comments and suggestions received from all the Nationalised Banks as also the comments received from the Reserve Bank of India and the Central Vigilance Commission, the model Conduct Regulations had been finalised which could be adopted by all the Nationalised Bank u/s 19(1) of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer and Undertaking) Act, 1970. On behalf of the Central Government, it was further stated, that, the model Regulations finalised by the Central Government were essentially based on Central Civil Services Conduct Rules, 1964, with certain departures having regard to special character of the banking industry. The Government of India had also informed the respondent no. 1, Bank, that the model Discipline and Appeal Regulations applicable to the bank officers had been also finalised (vide letter of the Under Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Banking Government of India, to the Chairman and the Managing Director of the United Bank of India dated October 25, 1975, Annexure ''B'' to the affidavit-in-opposition of Sourendra Nath Ghosh).

The respondent no. 1, Bank, has annexed to their said affidavit-in-opposition a note prepared by its Deputy General Manager, Administration regarding the said model Conduct Regulations which had been, included in the agenda for the meeting of the said Board of Directors of the United Bank of India due to be held on 24th November, 1975. The Deputy General Manager, Administration of the respondent no. 1, Bank, had recommended that the said Conduct Regulations might be adopted and made applicable to the officers of the Bank. On 24th November, 1975, the Board of Directors of the respondent no. 1, Bank, by majority, resolved that the said Bank Officers Employees'' Conduct Regulations be adopted and same be made applicable with effect from January 1, 1976 subject to the approval of the Reserve Bank of India. Suggestion made by the two of the directors for postponment of the said agenda for further scrutiny was not accepted by the majority of the Directors.

On 28th November, 1975 the Deputy General Manager, Administration of the United Bank of India, addressed a letter to the Joint Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Banking, Government of India, stating that on 24th November, 1975 the Board of the Bank had approved the draft conduct Regulations forwarded by the Central Government. The Deputy General Manager of the Bank by the same letter forwarded their comments on the model Discipline and Appeal Regulations sent by the Government of India. The bank proposed alteration of the Rules relating to the payment of subsistence allowance to officers under suspension.

In the meantime, on 7th April, 1976 the Chairman, Indian Banks Association, wrote a letter to the Director, Department of Banking, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, stating that he had gone through the clarifications given regarding the points raised by him about Conduct Regulations. He requested for sending formal communication to member banks so that they might be asked to go ahead in adopting and implementing the Regulations. On 27th April, 1976 the Director, Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Banking sent to the Chairman, Indian Banks Association the Government comments upon the suggestions from the Indian Banks Association on the conduct Regulations/Discipline and Appeal Regulations.

On 23rd June, 1976, the Board of Directors of the United Bank of India, too resolved that the amendments of the Bank Officers Employees Conduct Regulations as contained in the note dated 2nd June, 1976 of the Assistant General Manager, Accounts be approved and the Regulation IV, be amended. The Board of Directors at the same meeting resolved that the Discipline and Appeal Regulations for officer employees of the bank presented by the Deputy General Manager, Administration of. the Bank be approved and adopted and that the same be made applicable to all officers of the Bank with immediate effect, after obtaining approval from the Department of the Revenue and Banking Government of India and the Reserve Bank of India u/s 19(1) of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1970. Two Directors recorded their note of dissent.

The respondent no. 1, Bank, have also annexed to their said Affidavit-in-Opposition a letter dated August 7, 1976 written by the Deputy Chief Officer of the Reserve Bank of India, Central Office, Bombay, to the Chairman, United Bank of India. The Deputy Chief Officer of the Reserve Bank of India had referred to the correspondence on the subject of model Discipline and Appeal Regulations and informed that the Reserve Bank of India had their views on the said Regulations framed by the Bank to the Government and the United Bank of India would hear from them in due course. Certain typographical errors in the draft Regulations were also pointed out. The Joint Secretary, Government of India, Department of Revenue and Banking Wing, by a letter dated August 20, 1976, wrote a letter to the Chairman and the Managing Director of the United Bank of India, enclosing the formal sanctions of the Government of India in terms of section 19(1) of the aforesaid Act to both the Conduct Regulations and the Discipline and Appeal Regulations as approved by the Board of the Bank. The Joint Secretary requested the Chairman of the Bank to formally adopt the Regulations. The Central Government sanctions u/s 19(1) of the aforesaid Act of the two Regulations have been made collectively Annexure ''E'' to the Affidavit-in-Opposition on behalf of the respondent No. 1, Bank.

Thereupon, the Assistant General Manager, Accounts, of the respondent no. 1, Bank, had recommended to the Board of Directors for adopting the said Conduct Regulations and the Discipline and Appeal Regulations. On 15th December, 1976 the Board of Directors passed a resolution resolving that the aforesaid Conduct Regulations 2 and the Discipline and Appeal Regulations be adopted and the same be made effective from 1st January 1977. On 17th December, 1976 the Assistant General Manager of the United Bank of India issued a Circular informing all concerned that the aforesaid two Regulations would come into force from 1st January, 1977 and all officers, should conform to and abide by the said -two Regulations.

I now proceed to consider the submission that the aforesaid two Regulations have not been made in accordance with section 19 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1970. The power to make such Regulations is vested in the Board of Directors of a corresponding new bank and the same is qualified by the following two conditions.

(1) Consultation with the Reserve Bank of India, and (2) Previous sanction of the Central Government. Mr. Chatterjee has urged that it was the Central Government which made both the model and also the final draft of the said two Regulations and under the Government''s direction the Board of Directors of the said Bank had to adopt the same.

I am, unable to accept Mr. Chatterjee''s contention that the impugned two Regulations have not been made in accordance with section 19 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1970. Mr. Roy Chowdhury, learned advocate for the respondent no. 1. Bank has rightly drawn my attention to section 8 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1970, which has provided that every corresponding new Bank shall, in the discharge of its function, be guided by such directions in regard to matters of policy involving public interest as the Central Government may give after consultation with the Governor of the Reserve Bank of India. Therefore, it was within the competence of the Central Government to give directions to the Nationalised Banks for making uniform Regulations regarding the terms and conditions of service of their officers and their duties, conduct and discipline. These Banks were wholly owned by the Central Government. They were instrumentalities or agencies of the State. The Central, Government could legitimately direct that the officers of all nationalised Banks ought to be equally treated by framing of uniform sets of Conduct and Discipline and Appeal Regulations for them. The respondents have also disclosed that prior to making of these two Regulations, the Banking Service Commission had examined the matter and thereafter the Central Government had initiated proposals for framing Conduct and Discipline and Appeal Regulations common to all then nationalised Banks. There is enough material on record to establish that the Reserve Bank of India had been consulted before the respondent no. 1. Bank made the impugned two Regulations. I have already mentioned that as early as 21st September, 1973. the Central Government had requested the respondent no. 1, Bank to forward to the Reserve Bank of India a copy of its comments on the model Conduct Regulations sent by the Government (vide Annexure ''A'' to the Affidavit-in-Opposition on behalf of the respondent no. 1, Bank). On 3rd, December 1973 the Bank had accordingly sent a copy of its comments and suggestions on the model Conduct Regulations to the Reserve Bank of India and another copy to the Central Government. The same procedure was followed when the respondent no. 1, Bank, had forwarded its comments on the draft Discipline and Appeal Regulations. It is also clear from the letter of the Central Government dated 25th October, 1975 that the Reserve Bank of India and the Central Vigilance Commission had sent their comments to the proposed Regulations (vide paragraph 37 of the Bank''s Affidavit-in-Opposition). After the Board of Directors of the Bank had adopted the Conduct Regulations, the Reserve Bank of India again communicated their views on the model Discipline and Appeal Regulations of the Central Government. Section 19 of the Act has not prescribed the precise manner of such consultation with the Reserve Bank of India. I accept the submission of Mr. Roy Chowdhury that when indentical materials were placed both before the respondent no. 1, Bank and the Reserve Bank of India, and each had opportunity to make comments and suggestions on the two draft Regulations, there was sufficient compliance with the legal requirement for consultation with the Reserve Bank of India. The expression ''consult'' in ordinary parlance means ''to take counsellor advice from another''. In the instant case, in adequate manner the Reserve Bank of India''s views and advice were sought for and obtained.

Mr. Roy Chowdhury, appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 1, Bank, has correctly pointed out that section 19 of the Act did not lay down the precise procedure for consultation with the Reserve Bank of India and the manner in which the Central Government would grant prior sanction to Regulation made by the Directors of a Nationalised Bank. The expression "prior sanction" in section 19(1) of the Act clearly indicate that unless previous sanction is given by the Central Government, the Board of Directors of a Bank cannot make any Regulation under the said sanction.

I have noted that the Central Government had directed that uniform Regulations ought to have been made for officer employees of the Nationalised Banks. In order to achieve such objective, it was necessary to prepare model Regulations in order to intimate discussion and to enable the different authorities u/s 19(1) of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1970 to express their views. Therefore, I find that the Central Government did not act illegally by forwarding to the different" Banks two sets of model Regulations, which broadly indicated what kinds of Regulations might receive the sanction of the Central Government. At that initial stage the preparing of draft Regulation was a ministerial job and therefore, the Central Government did not do anything wrong in directing that only the managerial staff of the Bank might give their comments and suggestions. After the said comments and suggestions were received from the Bank and the Reserve Bank of India had been consulted, the Central Government had prepared the draft Regulations which were again forwarded to the Banks. The Board of Directors of the respondent no. 1, Bank had at the second stage considered and approved the draft Regulations, subject to certain alternations. In the third stage, the Central Government formally accorded its approval to the two draft Regulations. In the fourth and final stage, the Board of Directors of the respondent no. 1, Bank passed formal resolutions making the two. Regulations, and fixed the date from which the said two Regulations would come into force. Thus, all the formalities laid down by section 19(1) of the Act were fulfilled and the two impugned Regulations were lawfully made. I find that the respondent no. 1 had fully participated in the drafting, processing and after deliberation had passed the relevant Regulations. Therefore, I reject the contention that the respondent no. 1, Bank, had played only a passive role.

The Central Government u/s 19(1) of the Act has been given over-riding powers, therefore, they naturally took a leading part in initiating, drafting and finalising the two impugned Regulations. I have already found exchange of views took place between the Central Government, the Reserve Bank of India and the Banks. In order to achieve uniform sets of Regulations, the various steps by the Central Government were not only legitimate but also were necessary in order to reach a concensus among the different authorities u/s 19(1) of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1970, Unless the Central Government had first formulated model regulations, I fail to see, how else it would have been possible within a reasonable time to frame uniform sets of Regulations for the fourteen nationalised Banks.

I respectfully agree with the reasons given by Lentin, J. of the Bombay High Court in Misc. Petition No. 1054 of 1954 for reacting arguments made regarding the two similar Regulations made for officer employees of the Central Bank of India.

The petitioners have challenged the vires of the different provisions of the Conduct Regulations and the Discipline and Appeal Regulations made by the respondent no. 1, Bank, mainly on the ground that they are violative of the Fundamental Rights of the Officer employees of the Bank, it is now settled law that the Constitution of India does not exclude the Government servants as a class from protection of rights guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution save in those cases which are covered by Article 33 of the Constitution of India (see Kameshwar Prasad v. State of Bihar AIR 1962 S.C. 1168 and O. K. Ghosh v. E. K. Joseph AIR 1968 S.C. 812). Gajendragadkar, J. in the case of O. K. Ghosh v. E. K. Joseph (supra), had observed that there could be no doubt that Government servants could be subjected to rules which are intended to maintain discipline among their ranks and to lead to an efficient discharge of their duties. Discipline among Government servants and their efficiency may be in a sense said to be related to Public Order which is virtually synonymous with public peace, safety and tranquility (see also Deep Chand and Another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, ). The courts of law have repeatedly exphasised that the reasonableness of restriction ought to be decided in the background for making an order, the nature of the evil which was sought to be remedied by such order, the degree of the harm caused to individual citizens by the proposed remedy. The court also considers whether the restraints imposed by a law are more than what is necessary in the interest of the general public. The validity of the impugned Regulations ought to be also decided in the context of the nature of the duties and responsibilities of the officers of the bank and the necessity of their maintaining a very high standard of integrity and observing utmost devotion to duty. Banks are financial institutions and their officers are often required to deal with transactions involving large sums of money. Misconduct on the part of the bank''s management may have serious repercussion upon the public confidence in a Bank. It is very much necessary to prevent dealing which might affect public confidence in the Bank.

The expression "restriction" in Article 19 of the Constitution has been held to be sufficiently wide to include also cases of prohibition and the court in every case of restriction, either partial or total, is required to decide whether such restrictions satisfy the test of reasonableness. I may point out that most of the provisions of the Conduct Regulations which have been challenged impose partial and not total prohibition and with previous sanction or permission of the Bank or the Competent Authority officer employer may engage in the activities in question. I agree with the observations made by Lentin, J. of the Bombay High Court in his judgment in Misc. Petition No. 1054(W) of 1957, that the Regulations themselves contain enough guidelines for granting or refusing permission or sanction to an officer of the bank to engage in a particular activity or act. The Bank and the Competent Authority are bound to exercise such powers by giving due regard to the objects of the Regulations and the ends to be achieved. There could be no assumption that in granting permission or sanction in the matters specified in the various Regulations, the Bank or the Competent Authority would not act reasonably, fairly and with a sense of responsibility. Lentin, J. in his aforesaid judgment has rightly referred to some of the redecided cases which lay down that there is a presumption that public officials would discharge their duties honestly and in accordance with the rules of law. Therefore the court cannot assume that the powers to grant or withhold permission or sanction as provided in some of these Regulations would be abused and, therefore, provisions for giving such discreation to the bank or the prescribed authority cannot be held to be arbitrary. In view of the guidelines provided, the said Regulations themselves are not ultra vires. But if in a particular case the Bank or the Competent Authority acts arbitrarily, unfairly, unreasonably, or in violation of the principles of natural justice, the said individual acts would be invalid and the court may strike down the same.

I find no substance in the submission of Mr. Chatterjee, learned advocate for the petitioner, that Regulation 1(3) of the Conduct Regulations, 1976, is discriminatory merely because the Conduct Regulations do not apply to i) the Chairman of the Bank, ii) the Managing Director of the Bank, iii) any whole time Director, (iv) those in casual employment or paid from contingency, and (v) award staff. The Chairman, Managing Director and Directors are appointed by the Central Government and not by the Bank. Persons in casual, employment form a separate class Both the Shastri Award and the Dessi Award contain elaborate provisions regarding conduct, disciplinary matters etc. which are binding both upon the Corresponding new Banks and the award staff. Thus, in matters of conduct and discipline there was reasonable basis for differentiation between the officer employees of the Bank and the officials appointed by the Government and the award staff etc.

Mr. Chatterjee had challenged Regulations 3(4) of the Conduct Regulations which, inter-alia, provides that every officer employee shall take all possible steps, to ensure the integrity and devotion to duty of all persons for the time being under his control and authority. It is the part of the general duty of every officer employee to exercise control and authority over employee working under him and, therefore, it is not unreasonable to require every officer to secure the integrity and devotion to duty of his subordinates. Regulations 3 of the Conduct Regulations broadly corresponds to Rule 3 of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules 19, 1956, B. N. Banerjee, J. in Sripati Ranjan Biswas v. Collector of Customs AIR 1963 Cal 415 (417), had upheld the validity of the said Rule which required integrity and devotion to duty etc. Sabyasachi Mukherji, J: in Hari Prasad Singh Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal and Others, , followed the decision of B. N. Banerjee, J. in the case of Sripati Ranjan Biswas vs. Collector of Customs (supra).

Regulation 5 of the Conduct Regulations which deals with employment of the members of the family or Bank officers in firms enjoying bank''s clientage and grant of facilities is reasonable and inter vires. The object of the said Rule is obviously to ensure that there is no abuse or misuse of their official position by the officers of the bank and there is no conflict between interest and duty. These Rules also seek to eliminate possibility of favouritism by bank officers, Regulation 5(2) has not altogether prohibited acceptance of employment by a son of an officer employee of the bank in any private undertaking with which the said officer has any dealing. The said Rule also requires prior permission of the bank for permitting a son of the officer employee to accept service in such an undertaking with the proviso that in case of an urgency such employment may be accepted provisionally subject to the permission of the Conduct Regulations cannot be unreasonably or arbitrarily withheld by the Competent Authority and if it is done the same can be challenged in court on the grounds of malafide or arbitrariness.

Mr. Chatterjee has next challenged the Regulation 6(1) of the Conduct Regulations, 1976, which, inter-alia, forbide every officer employee from engaging directly or indirectly in any trade or business or undertaking, any other employment except with the previous sanction of the bank. Thus, for officers of the bank taking up. of outside employment is not totally prohibited and the bank may grant sanction to taking up such employment. Secondly under the proviso to Rule 6(1), such sanction will hot be necessary in case of honorary work of a social or charitable nature or occasional work of a literary, artistic, scientific, professional, cultural, educational religious or social character. Undoubtedly, the bank is entitled to insist that undertaking by its officers of the works specified in the said proviso shall not affect the performance of their duties towards the Bank. Secondly, the Bank has been given a power to direct the officer to discontinue such work. Again the provisions itself cannot be considered to be invalid merely because in a particular case such power may be abused or arbitrarily exercised. If the bank arbitrarily or malafide directs an officer to discontinue any honorary work of the nature specified in the proviso to Regulation 6(1) of the Conduct Regulation 1978 such individual decision may be challenged in court. Mr. Roy Chowdhury has referred to the Regulations 47 and 48 of the United Bank of India Officers Service Regulations, 1979 and has submitted that the bank officers hold transferable posts. Secondly, under the conditions of their services they must be available for bank''s duties at any time of the day. They being whole time employee, the bank may reasonably restrict its officers from taking up any other employment or work which may conflict with their duties as bank officers.

Mr. Chatterjee has seriously challenged the vires of Regulation 7 of the said Regulation. The sub Regulation of Regulation 7 provides that no officer employee shall without the previous- sanction of the Competent Authority own wholly or in part or conduct or participate in editing on the management of any newspaper or any other periodical publication. According to Mr. Chatterjee, this provision is arbitrary and also violative of Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution. The Regulation 7(2) of the Conduct Regulations provide that except with previous sanction of the Competent Authority or in the bonafide discharge of his duties an officer cannot participate in any radio broadcast or contribute any article or write in a letter either in his own name or anonymous or in the name of any other person to any newspaper or periodical or make public or publish or cause to be published or pass other any document or paper or information which may come into his possession in his official Rapacity. Officer employees under Regulation 7(3) are also forbidden to publish or cause to be published any book or any similar printed matter of which he is the author or to deliver talk or lecture in any public meeting or otherwise. A learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court has upheld the validity of the Regulation 7(1) while the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court has held as invalid the said Regulation 7 except the portion which prohibits making public, publishing or causing to be published or passing on to others any document or information coming into possession in the official capacity.

The question is whether the aforesaid provisions of Regulation 7 unreasonably infringe the freedom of speech and expression including the right to print, publish and circulate. In considering the reasonableness or otherwise of the restrictions imposed by Regulation 7 of the Conduct Regulations, it may be borne in mind that the said Regulation does not absolutely prohibit acts specified in clauses (1), (2) and (3) of the Regulation 7 and after obtaining previous sanction of the Competent Authority all these acts can be done. The respondents have also conceded that the proviso to Regulation 7 qualifies both clauses (2) and (3) of Regulation 7. Thus, the said proviso engrafts exceptions to the said restrictive provisions and to a considerable extent relaxes the restrictions imposed by Regulation 7. No sanction would be required if broadcast, contribution or publication is of a purely literary, artistic, scientific, professional cultural, educational, religious or social character. Times, no question of any such sanction would arise when an officer broadcasts, contributes or publishes any printed matter on the subjects specified in the said proviso to the said Regulation 7 and only in cases of broadcasting or contributing of any article or writing or publication of any book or printed matter on matters other than those specified in the said proviso, previous sanction of the Competent Authority would be required. In case such sanction is wrongfully, malafide and arbitrarily withheld or is refused, the aggrieved officer is at liberty to challenge such action in court. If an act of refusal is wrongful or malafide, it would be struck down and it the same held to be lawful and valid, the court would be upheld. The Conduct Regulations provide enough guidelines for exercise of the direction of the Competent Authority in granting and withholding such sanctions. The interests of the Bank, considerations of public order etc ought to be looked into in the matter of granting such sanctions.

The officers are whole time employees of the bank and, according to the Service Regulations, they should be available for Bank''s duties at any time of the day. Therefore, for efficient, discharge of their duties, the officers may be restricted from engaging in, any other work including editing or managing any publication, contribution to newspaper and radio broadcast etc. which might interfere with the efficient and due discharge of their duties. The Regulation 7(1) obviously refers to acquiring ownership of any newspaper or any periodical publication, after becoming an officer of the bank. If he was already owning a publication before his appointment no question of prior sanction could arise.

In his unreported judgment, Lentin, J. of the Bombay High Court in the light of the various reported cases has in extenso considered the reasonableness of similar restrictions imposed by Regulate on 7 of the Central Bank of India Officer Employees'' Conduct Regulations. I respectfully agree with the view of the learned Judge regarding the reasonableness of the said restrictions imposed by the three clauses of Regulation 7 of the said Regulation. The learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court has also upheld the validity of Regulation 7.

Regulation 8 of the Conduct Regulations forbid officer employees from engaging or participating in any demonstration which is prejudicial to the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, descency or morality or which involves contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an office. Therefore, the above restrictions are fully covered by clause (2) of Article 19 of the Constitution.

In my view, the Regulation 10 of the Conduct Regulations which imposes certain restrictions on giving evidence is reasonable. The said restrictions do not apply when evidence is given in the cases covered by sub-regulation (3) of Regulation 10. Therefore, the expressions "any person, committee or authority" in Regulation 7(1) do not include persons and authorities specified in sub-regulation (3). Secondly, the officer with previous approval may also testify before the person of authority mentioned in sub-regulation (1). The provisions of sub-regulation (2) of Regulation 10 is a reasonable and is necessary for maintaining discipline and obedience among officers.

Mr. Chatterjee has also challenged Regulation 11(1) of the Conduct. Regulations which provide, inter-alia, that no officer employee shall except with previous sanction of the Competent Authority receive any complimentary or valedictory address or testimonial or attend any meeting or entertainment held in his honour or in the honour of any other employee of the Bank. The proviso to Regulation 7(1) excludes from the aforesaid restrictive provisions, farewell functions and entertainment of substantially private and informal character and also acceptance of simple and inexpensive entertainment arranged by association of employees of the bank. In my view, the provisions of Regulation 11(1) are inter vires because same are necessary for maintaining integrity and honesty of the officer employee of the bank. With previous sanction the officer employee may receive complimentary and valedictary address etc.

I also find no substance in the ground which Mr. Chatterjee challenged. Regulation 13(1) which seeks to ensure regular and timely a tendance and prevent unauthorised absence. Leave ordinarily is not a matter of right. Secondly, except in case of unavailable circumstance''s, provision for obtaining permission for absence from duty cannot be considered unreasonable. No one has a fundamental right to be absent from his duty. Since every officer must be available for bank''s duty at any time of the day the Regulation 13(1) requires permission for leaving station. The said provision does not in any way infringe a bank officer''s freedom of movement. Secondly, in case of unavailable circumstance mentioned in the proviso to Regulation 13(1) of the Conduct Regulation an officer may leave station without prior permission and may obtain permission later subject to the satisfaction of the Competent Authority that such permission could not have been obtained. The provision for furnishing proper medical certificate in case of absence on the ground of sickness or accident is also reasonable and such medical certificate in case of temporary indisposition and sickness of a casual nature may be dispensed with by the Competent Authority.

Mr. Chatterjee has challenged the restrictions imposed under Regulation 14(1) of the Conduct Regulations regarding acceptance of gifts Regulations like Civil Services Conduct Rules, Railway Services Rules, All India Services Rules etc contain similar provisions. Such restriction is very much necessary to ensure their integrity, honesty and to rule out possibility of acceptance of illegal gratification in form of gifts. I respectfully agree with the views of Lentin J. of Bombay High Court in Misc. Petition no. 1054 of 1977 that Regulation 14(1) does not infringe any Fundamental Right because one cannot claim fundamental right to receive gift or to accept levish hospitality. A bank officer and his family consisting of his wife dependent children or any other person or any other relation wholly dependent upon the officer may not accept any gift save as otherwise provided in Regulation 14. While Explanation to Regulation 14(1) has broadened the meaning of the expression ''gift'' to include pecuniary advantages provided by any person who is not a near relative or a personal friend having no official dealing with the officer, under Note I causel social hospitality has been excluded from gift Regulation 14(2) and (3) permit a bank officer on occasion of marriage anniversaries and religious functions etc. to accept gifts from near relatives and personal friends subject to limits mentioned therein. In order to rule out the possibility of illegal gratification or acceptance of under favour by the bank officer, clause (4) has imposed more severe restrictions upon a acceptance of gifts by a bank officer from persons who are neither his relations nor his personal friends having no official dealings.

Mr. Chatterjee has also critisized the Regulation 15 of the Conduct Regulations which imposes restrictions on lending and borrowing by officer employees. Clause (I) of Regulation 15 has prohibited a bank officer and his family from borrowing from a broker or a money-lender or a subordinate employee of the bank or any person or body having dealings with the bank. Such restrictions have been previously imposed in Under to keep the bank officer from compromising their position in the bank as a result of borrowing or being under pecuniary, obligation to persons specified in Regulation 15(1). The bank officers have been also prohibited under Regulation 15(2) of the Conduct Regulations from indulging in speculative dealings in stocks and shares. But he has not been precluded from buying such stocks and shares at all costs. The bank officers have been also prohibited from lending money in private capacity as the same may give rise to conflict of his personal interest within his official duties. Under the first proviso to Regulation 15(1) an officer employee can give or accept temporary loan for a small amount from his relative and personal friend. An officer may also obtain loan from a co-operative credit society. These provisions are also necessary to prevent officers from indulging in shady financial transactions and speculative dealings. I find nothing objectionable in Regulation 17 of the Conduct Regulations which forbide officers from asking or accepting money without previous sanction of the competent authority. These provisions reasonably seeks to restrain the officers from observing their position to collect subscriptions etc.

The Regulation 18 of the Conduct Regulations has imposed restrictions upon speculative dealings in storks and shares and investments which are likely to embarass or influence a back officer in discharging his duties. Provisions for submission of returns of assets and liabilities under Regulation 20 of the Conduct Regulations also are not unreasonable. The similar provisions exit in various other Conduct and Service Rules. The bank officers are required to maintain in utmost integrity and honestly. In order to ensure honesty and integrity of bank officers. Provisions have been made for submission of such returns. With the same object restrictions have been imposed upon their acquisition and disposal of immovable properties and transactions concerning movable properties valued at more than Rs. 2500/-.

Mr. Chatterjee has also challenged some of the provisions of the United Bank of India Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1976. The provisions of the said Rules are broadly similar to provisions contained in the Central Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules. The Supreme Court and the different High Courts in India have decided many cases relating to disciplinary proceedings conducted under the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, and, therefore, I propose to consider the validity of the Discipline and Appeal Regulations framed by the respondent no. 1, Bank, in the light of some of these reported decisions. For the reasons already given by me, while considering similar provisions for exclusion contained in the Conduct Regulations, I hold that the provisions of Regulation 2(1) of the Discipline and Appeal Regulations of the respondent No. 1, Bank are valid.

There is no substance in Mr. Chatterjee''s submission that the Discipline and Appeal Regulations ought to have indicated in what cases of misconduct major penalties would be imposed. Both the Conduct Regulations and the Discipline and Appeal Regulations contain enough guidelines for deciding whether in a given case the procedure prescribed for imposing major penalties or the procedure prescribed for minor penalties would be applied. Provisions for appeal and review contained in the Discipline and Appeal Regulations also provide sufficient checks and safe-guards for preventing abuse of disciplinary powers. The authority who may institute disciplinary proceedings is expected to consider all the facts and circumstances of misconduct and misbehavior alleged against an officer for deciding whether the procedure for imposing any of the penalties prescribed in clauses (e) to (h) of Regulation 4 to be initiated. I respectfully agree with the reasons given by the learned Judge of the Bombay High Court in Misc. Petition No. 1054 of 1977 and hold these provisions are not vague and do not confer arbitrary power to decide the enquiry procedure.

Mr. Chatterjee has challenged the Regulation 6(2) of the said Regulations on the ground that it would be violation of the principles of natural justice to allow the disciplinary authority himself to enquire into the charges framed against a bank officer. The disciplinary authority, according to Regulation 3 (g), means the authority specified in the Schedule who is competent to impose on an officer employee any of the penalties specified in Regulation 4. Mr. Chatterjee however, failed to city any reported decision in which a similar provision empowering the disciplinary authority itself to hold an enquiry has been struck down as unreasonable. In many cases courts had rejected the contention that the disciplinary authority alone could conduct the disciplinary proceeding and he could not delegate to any other person the power to hold the enquiry while retaining the power to impose penalty if found guilty. Article 311(1) of the Constitution itself require that only the appointing authority may dismiss or remove a member of the civil service. While under clause (2) of Article 311 no person can be dismissed or reduced in rank except after an enquiry holding of the enquiry by any person other than the authority appointing the delinquent officer, has not been prohibited. It is now well settled that the disciplinary authority may delegate the holding of the enquiry. In a given case when the disciplinary or the enquiring authority is biased or act in violation of the principles of natural justice, the court would quash the disciplinary proceedings but the same cannot be a ground for striking down Rule 6 of the Discipline and Appeal Regulations.

Mr. Chatterjee has challended the provision for appointing any other public servant to enquire into charges framed against a bank officer. Mr. Chatterjee has pointed out that according to Regulation 2(m), ''public servant'' means a person as defined person in section 21 of the Indian Penal Code. In my view, merely because a public servant may or may not be an officer of the Bank, it cannot be informed that the delinquent officer will not get justice when a public servant who is not an officer of the Bank is appointed to enquire into the charges. If in a particular ease there is any reasonable basis for such apprehension that, the requiring authority is biased, the delinquent officer may successfully object to his appointment. But the Regulation itself cannot he challenged as invalid and unreasonable.

Mr. Chatterjee has also challenged the clauses (6) and (7) of Regulation 6 of the Disciplinary Regulations which'' provide that the disciplinary authority may appoint public servant known as the Presenting Officer to present on its behalf the case in support of the articles of the charge. The officer employee has been prohibited from engaging a legal practitioner or any other person except another officer employee. Mr. Chatterjee has submitted that while there is no restriction on the appointment as Presenting Officer a trained prosecutor or a lawyer provided he is a public servant, the Regulations forbid delinquent officer to engage a legal practitioner, or an outsider of his choice as his defence helper. I am unable to accept the submission of Mr. Subrata Roy Chowdhury that Regulation 6(7) does not absolutely forbid engagement of a legal practitioner as defence helper and that the said provision is directory and at the discretion of the enquiring authority the officer employee may take assistance even of a legal practitioner. The Rule 6(7) does contain any provision authorising the disciplinary authority to permit an outsider or a lawyer to act as a defence helper. Secondly, upon a plain reading of the said provision, it ought to be held that the officer employee could take the assistance of any other officer employee but he cannot engage a legal practitioner. In my view, such a provision cannot be held to be reasonable because if deprives the officer employee from taking assistance of defence helper of his own choice. These rules unreasonably restrict the right of the delinquent, officer to engage his own defence helper.

I do not subscribe to the extreme view that in every departmental proceeding, irrespective of the nature of the charges and the volume of evidence adduced the delinquent ought to be invariably given opportunity to be represented by legal practitioner. But in order to conform to the principles of natural justice, rules for holding departmental proceedings ought to be confer upon the disciplinary authority a discretion to decide whether in the facts and circumstances of a particular case delinquent should be allowed to take assistance of a legal practitioner. In a given case the charges levelled against the delinquent may be simple and the evidence in support thereof is not voluminous and the administration, has not engaged a legally trained person as Presenting Officer in the proceeding. In such circumstances it may not be unreasonable to refuse the delinquent officer to be represented by a lawyer. But when there are a number of charges and the case is of some complexity and the department choses to have a legally trained person as the Presenting Officer, a delinquent may suffer Serious prejudice and denial of reasonable opportunity in case the disciplinary authority turns down his prayer for engaging a lawyer as defence lawyer. In fact, most of the rules for departmental proceedings now confer such discretion upon the disciplinary authority to permit the delinquent to be represented by a legally trained person. For the foregoing reasons, I hold as ultra vires the rules, which give unfettered right to the disciplinary authority to engage any public servant including a legally trained prosecutor as Presenting Officer in a departmental proceeding and at the same time totally forbid the delinquent officer from taking the assistance of a legal practitioner. Such rules ought to be held as unreasonable and arbitrary and in violation of the principles of natural justice. Recently, a Division Bench of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay Vs. Dilipkumar Raghavendranath Nadkarni and Others, held as follows :

"Where in an enquiry before the domestic tribunal the delinquent officer is pitted against a legally trained mind, if he seeks permission to appear through a legal practitioner the refusal to grant this request would amount to denial of a reasonable request to defend himself and the essential principles of natural justice would be violated. Where the request of an employee of the Bombay Port Trust in an enquiry against him, for being represented by lawyer was refused while legally trained officer were appointed as presenting officers for the employer Trust, the enquiry would be deemed to be vitiated for denying the employee a reasonable opportunity of hearing."

The learned Judges had referred to their earlier decision in the case of C.L. Subramaniam Vs. Collector of Customs, Cochin, . It may be noted that under Rule 15(5) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957, which was considered if the case of C. L. Subramaniam v. Collector of Customs (supra), the disciplinary authority had a discretion to permit the delinquent to engage a legal practitioner having regard to the circumstances of the case. On facts it was held that the officer in the case of C. L. Subramaniam v. Collector of Customs (supra), was not prejudiced by denial of legal assistance. In the context of Article 22(3) of the Constitution, the Supreme Court in the case of A.K. Roy and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, , had examined what would be the effect, if the department is represented before the Advisory Board by a legally trained person and came to the conclusion that in such a, case the detenue ought to be also permitted to appear by a legal practitioner. Reference also may be made to the Supreme Court decision in the case of Bhagat Ram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others, , which dealt with a case arising under Rule 15(5) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. According to Rule 14(8) (c) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, a qualified right has been given to the delinquent to engage a legal practitioner. In case the person nominated by the disciplinary authority is a legal practitioner, the delinquent may also engage a legal practitioner. In other cases, the disciplinary authority may grant such permission to the delinquent having regard to the circumstances of the case.

I respectfully agree with the observations of Mr. Justice Padmanabhan in the case of D. Padmanabhan v. Indian Overseas Bank (Supra) that the Regulations 6(6) and 6(7) of the Discipline Regulations are unreasonable because they deny the officer employees'' right to engage a legal practitioner even in case the Presenting Officer in a departmental proceeding is a trained prosecutor or a legal practitioner. My attention has been drawn to the Paragraph 40 of the judgment of Lentin J. in J. G. Savant v. Central Bank of India (supra). I am unable to apply the ratio of the decision of the learned Judge regarding Regulation 6(7) of the Discipline Regulations of the officer employees of the Central Bank, of India. A copy of the said Regulations framed for the officer employees was also placed before me which do not contain any provision entitling the officer employee to the services of the legal practitioner when the Presenting Officer himself is a legal practitioner or when the Disciplinary Authority having regard to the circumstances of the case permits. I am not aware whether any amendment had been made to the said Regulation 6(7) or whether. Upon interpretation of Rule 6(7). The learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court held the same to be intra vires because by implication gives a delinquent officer opportunity to engage a lawyer under the circumstances mentioned in the judgment of Lentin, J. L. have already indicated that Regulation 6(7) of the United Bank of India Discipline Regulations do not leave any discretion to the Disciplinary Authority to allow an officer to engage a lawyer as his defence helper. Therefore, Regulation 6(7) is unreasonable and arbitrary and, it ought to be struck down. But said Regulation 6(7) is severable from the other provisions contained in the Discipline and Appeal Regulations and the validity of the said remaining provisions are not affected by striking down of Regulation 6(7).

I find no substance in the contention of Mr. Chatterjee that the provisions in. the Discipline Regulations regarding payment of subsistence allowance is ultra fires because the same may be not fully consistent with the provisions of the West Bengal Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act. In the first place, in the case of any repugnancy between the two sets of provisions, in respect of Officer employees of Nationalised Banks, regulations framed u/s 19 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act ought to prevail. Secondly, the officers are managerial staff of the Bank and therefore the said West Bengal Act does not apply to the officers of Nationalised Banks. For the foregoing reasons, I make this Rule absolute in part by declaring the Regulation 6(7) of the United Bank of India Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 197B as invalid. I command the respondents not to give effect or further effect to Regulation 6(7) of the said Regulations. I discharge the Rule by rejecting all other contentions raised by the petitioner regarding the validity of the United Bank of India Officer Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1976 and of the United Bank of India Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976.

There will be no order as to costs.

Operation of this order will remain stayed for three weeks from date.

Rule made absolute in part.