Sohan Singh vs M.P. State Co-Operative Tribunal and Others

The petitioners are aggrieved of the order passed by the Co-operative Tribunal in having upheld the order passed by the Bank dispensing with the service of the petitioners u/s 71(1) of the Service Rules applicable to the petitioners, which permits the Bank to dispense with the service of the employees of the Bank after 25 years of service without supplying any reason in the interest of Bank. The petitioners have approached this Court for setting aside the order dated 11.11.2008 passed by the Co-operative Tribunal vide Annexure P-8. By this order the Co-operative Tribunal upheld the order of compulsory retirement of the petitioners from the service of the Bank in exercising of powers available to the Bank as per Rule 71(1), which permits the Bank to dispense with the Service of any Bank employee after completion of 25 years of service without supplying any reason in the interest of bank.

Briefly stating the facts which gave rise to filing of these petitions as noticed by the Co-operative Tribunal in paragraph 2 of its order are as under:-

This decision pertains to the 11 persons including the two petitioners. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioners filed the petitions before the Registrar u/s 80(1) of the M.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short, the Act) by which the Registrar set aside the order. Thereafter the Revision Petition was filed by the Bank u/s 55(2) of the Act which was Registered as Revision Petition No. 155/2004 and in terms of the aforesaid order, further facts are as under:-

The similar order has been passed in both the cases. The Co-operative Tribunal after taking note of the facts of this case and the decision taken by the Board to dispense with the service of 11 employees including the petitioners w.e.f. 01.04.2003 observed thus:-

The Tribunal has also mentioned about the judgment delivered in the case of Baikuntha Nath Das and another Vs. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada and another, wherein, following principles have been laid down:-

The following principles emerge from the above discussion:-

(i) An order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment. It implies no stigma nor any suggestion of misbehavior.

(ii) The order has to be passed by the Government on forming the opinion that it is in the public interest to retire a Government servant compulsorily. The order is passed on the subjective satisfaction of the Government.

(iii) Principles of natural justice have no place in the context of an order of compulsory retirement. This does not mean that judicial scrutiny is excluded altogether. While the High Court of this Court would not examine the matter as an appellate Court, they may interfere if they are satisfied that the order is passed (a) malafide or (b) that it is based on no evidence or (c) that it is arbitrary in the sense that no reasonable person would form the requisite opinion on the given material; in short, if it is found to be perverse order.

(iv) The Government (or the Review Committee, as the case may be) shall have to consider the entire record of service before taking a decision in the matter of course attaching more importance to record of and performance during the later years. The record to be so considered would naturally include the entries in the confidential records/character rolls, both favourable and adverse. If a Government servant is promarks, such remarks lose their sting, more so, if the promotion is based merit (selection) and not upon seniority.

(v) An order of compulsory retirement is not liable to be quashed by a Court merely on the showing that while passing it un-communicated adverse remarks were also taken into consideration. That circumstances by itself cannot be a basis for interference is permissible only on the grounds mentioned in (iii) above.

We have gone through the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners as also the record including the orders passed by the Registrar as well as Co-operative Tribunal, we are of the considered view that the powers are very much available with the Bank in the interest of the Bank to dispense with the service of the employee of Bank under the Service Rules of the Act applicable to the petitioners. In this case, the services have been dispense with further reason that the financial condition of the bank was such, which did not permit the bank to continue with the services of all those, who have been compulsorily retired including the petitioners. Thus it is not reflected on the work and conduct of any of the petitioners but is the decision, which has been taken in the interest of the bank and which decision, the bank was authorised to take in view of the rule 71(1) of Service Rules applicable to the petitioners.

It may be observed that, it is not the case of the petitioners that their termination was not in accordance with the service rules or that the eligibility for dispensing with the service was not met in their case.

Neither any malafide has been pleaded nor any discrimination has been brought to our notice. Moreover, the order of the Tribunal was passed on 11.11.2008 whereas, the present writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners on 10.08.2010 and 28.01.2010, which are after about 18 and 14 months later respectively. This also tantamounts to delay and latches on the part of the petitioners and as such, we do not feel any justification to interfere into the aforesaid cases. Accordingly, the petitions are dismissed with no orders as to costs.

C.c. as per rules.