http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: GWALIOR DISTRICT CO-OPERATlVE CENTRAL BANK LTD. GWALIOR

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: RAMESH CHANDRA MANGAL AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT26/09/1984

BENCH: CHANDRACHUD, Y.V. ((CJ) BENCH: CHANDRACHUD, Y.V. ((CJ) DESAI, D.A. THAKKAR, M.P. (J)

CITATION:  1985 AIR  337            1985 SCR  (1) 856  1984 SCC  Supl.  528     1984 SCALE  (2)768

ACT:      Administrative Law-Madhya Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act 1960  s. 53 (4)-Delegation of power-Power conferred upon Apex bank by Registrar of Cooperative Societies-Whether Apex Bank could  re-delegate such  power in some other authority- Held: No.  The Apex  Bank had  no power  to re-delegate  its authority.

HEADNOTE:      The Board  of  Directors  of  the  appellant  bank  was superseded by the Registrar of the Cooperative Societies and its powers  were vested  in the  M.P. State Cooperative Bank which  is   an  Apex  Bank  as  "officer-in-charge"  of  the superseded bank.  The Apex  Bank appointed  one S.P. Jain as the Chief Executive officer of the appellant bank.      Respondent No.  1, an  employee of  the appellant bank, was dismissed  from service  by S.P. Jain on the ground that he  had  overstayed  the  leave  granted  to  him.  The  Dy. Registrar of  Cooperative Societies set aside the said order of dismissal and directed reinstatement of respondent No. 1, but it  was reversed by the Addl. Registrar in appeal by the appellant Bank.  In further  appeal by  Respondent No. 1 the Board of  Revenue set  aside the  order of  termination. The High Court  in the  Writ Petition  filed  by  appellant-Bank agreed  with   the  Board   of  Revenue   and  also  ordered reinstatement of Respondent No. 1.      Dismissing  the   appeal  by   the  appellant-Bank  and modifying the order of the High Court, ^      HELD: The  Apex Bank  had no  authority or  power so to appoint S.P.  Jain for  two reasons: In the first place, the Apex Bank,  being an  appointee of  the  Registrar,  had  no authority to divest itself of the power conferred upon it by the Registrar  and to  invest S.P. Jain with that power. The only authority  which could  have  conferred  the  necessary power on  S.P. Jain was the Registrar. The Registrar did not confer that power upon S.P. Jain under section 53 (4) of the Act. Therefore the said order had no existence in the eye of law. [858D-E] 857

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil  Appeal No. 996 of 1979      From the  Judgment and  Order  dated  26.10.78  of  the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Misc. Petition No. 176/74.      S.N. Kacker,  S.K. Ghambir  and Ashok  Mahajan for  the appellant.      T.U. Mehta,  S.S. Khanduja, R.D. Jain, Mehfooz Khan and Yashpal Dhingra for the respondents.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      CHANDRACHUD, C.J.  Respondent 1  was  appointed  as  an Agent of the appellant-Bank, which is a co-operative society registered under  and governed  by  the  provisions  of  the Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act. 1970. By an order dated June  5, 1968 passed by one S.P. Jain, the services of respondent 1 were terminated on the ground that he had over- stayed the leave granted to him.      Aggrieved by  that order, respondent 1 raised a dispute under section  SS(2) of the Act, before the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies. The Registrar referred the matter to the Deputy  Register, who  by an  order dated  February  27, 1972, allowed  the claim  of respondent 1 on the ground that the order  terminating the  services was  not in  accordance with Rules  44 and 45 of Co-operative Bank Employees Service Rules. He  also ordered  the reinstatement  of respondent  1 with full  back salary and allowances. In an appeal filed by the Bank,  the Addl.  Registrar took  the view that the only remedy which  was open  to respondent 1 was to claim damages for  wrongful   termination  of   his  services   and  that, therefore, he  could not be reinstated in service Respondent 1 than  filed an  appeal before  the Board  of Revenue which held by  an order dated August 28, 1974, that, S.P. Jain who held the  enquiry against  respondent 1 and passed the order terminating his services had no power to do so. The Board of Revenue set  aside the order of termination and remanded the matter to  the Bank for disposal in accordance with law. The writ petition  filed by the Bank in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh was  dismissed on October 26, 1973. According to the High Court,  since S.  P. Jain  had no authority to hold the enquiry or to pass the impugned order of dismissal, the said order had no existence in the eye of law and, 858 therefore, respondent  1 should  be deemed  to be in service and be  reinstated. Aggrieved  by the  judgment of  the High Court the Bank has filed this appeal.      We are  in agreement  with the  conclusion to which the High Court  has come,  though for somewhat different reasons which are as follows:-      "The Board  of  Directors  of  the  appellant-Bank  was      superseded  by   the  Registrar   of  the  Co-operative      Societies by  an order  dated July  25,  1967  and  its      powers were  vested in Madhya Pradesh State Cooperative      Bank, Jabalpur,  which is an Apex Bank, as "officer-in-      charge" of  the superseded  Bank. By  Resolution No. 23      dated May  19, 1968, the Apex Bank confirmed the action      of its  Chairman/Vice  Chairman  in  deputing,  amongst      others S.P.  Jain as the Chief Executive officer of the      superseded Bank.  The Apex  Bank had  no  authority  or      power so  to appoint  S.P. Jain for two reasons: In the      first place,  the Apex  Bank, being an appointee of the      Registrar, had  no authority  to divest  itself of  the      power conferred  upon it by the Registrar and to invest      S.P. Jain  with that  power. The  only authority  which

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

    could have  conferred the necessary power. On S.P. Jain      was the  Registrar. The  Registrar did  not confer that      power upon S.P. Jain under Section 53(4) of the Act".      In the result, this appeal is dismissed with costs.      We would  like to  add that  as long  as 16  years have passed since the impugned order was passed and that too by a person who  had no  authority  to  pass  it.  Secondly,  the consensus of  opinion of  the various authorities which have dealt with  this matter  is that,  in overstaying  the leave granted to him, respondent l was not guilty of "misconduct". It is  desirable and  prudent that no further proceedings be taken against  respondent 1  for the  alleged default on his part,  which   is  the   subject-matter   of   the   present proceedings.      We modify the order of the High Court by directing that respondent l  will be  entitled to  fifty per  cent of the , back wages  and i  allowances only  from June  5, 1968 until September 30,  1984. The appellant will back respondent 1 in its service with effect from October 1, 1984. M.L.A.    Appeal dismissed. 859