1. Heard Sri Anurag Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri Lalit Shukla, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4.
2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order of dismissal dated 23.9.2019 and the order of recovery from the emoluments payable to the petitioner of Rs.26,50,000/-.
3. It is admitted case of the petitioner that he holds the post of Branch manager, which is a Grade-II post.
4. Sri Lalit Shukla, learned counsel for respondent-Bank raised preliminary objection that the order is appealable as per the provision contained under Regulation 49 of the Aryavart Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations, 2010. Regulation 49 is extracted below :-
"49. Right to appeal -(1) An officer or employee may prefer an appeal against any order passed under these regulations to the Appellate Authority mentioned in regulation 50 within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of such order.
(2) The Appellate Authority shall decide the appeal and pass order preferably within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of the appeal."
5. On the said submission of learned counsel for respondent-Bank, learned counsel for the petitioner tried to establish that the order of dismissal is without jurisdiction and the Chairman is the competent authority to pass the impugned order, but it has been passed by the General Manager. He invited attention of this Court on the definition of the appointing authority under Rule 5 of the Classification of Officers and Employees, Appointment, Probation and Termination of Service framed under Chapter-II, which is being quoted below :-
"5. Appointment of the officer and employee in the Bank's service -(1) The Chairman shall be the Appointing Authority in respect of officer and the General Manager shall be the Appointing Authority in respect of employee."
6. On the said basis, relying upon the judgment in the case of Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and others [1998 (8) SCC 1], submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in case the order is without jurisdiction, the writ petition can be entertained.
7. I have considered the submission advanced and perused the material on record.
8. In Gramin Bank of Aryavart (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations, 2010 under Chapter-I, Regulation 1(b), appointing authority has been defined, which is as under :-
"(b) 'Appointing Authority' means the authority prescribed in sub-regulation (1) of regulation 5"
9. Competent authority has also been defined under Regulation 1 (g), which is being quoted below :-
"(g) 'Competent Authority' means :
(i) the Chairman in respect of officer Scale-III, IV and V;
(ii) General Manager in respect of Officer Scale-I and II; and
(iii) ...."
10. It is admitted case of the petitioner that he is an office of Grade-II and the General Manager is the competent authority to hold the disciplinary proceeding against the Officers of Grade-I and Grade-II, therefore, the preliminary objection raised by Sri Lalit Shukla, Advocate appears to have substance.
11. Submission advanced by learned counsel for petitioner that the appointing authority is the Chairman, therefore, the order passed by the General Manager is without jurisdiction, cannot be accepted.
12. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail statutory alternative remedy as provided under the Rules referred hereinabove.
13. The petitioner is permitted to file an appeal before the competent authority within three weeks from the date of receipt of this order and the same shall be decided within a further period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order without being influenced by the observation made in the order passed today by this Court.
Order Date :- 22.2.2021 Gautam