GWALIOR DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK LTD. GWALIOR versus RAMESH CHANDRA MANGAL AND ORS.

Citation: [1985] 1 S.C.R. 856 · Decided: 26-09-1984 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD, D.A. DESAI, M.P. THAKKAR · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
\ 
856 
GWALIOR DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE 
CENTRAL BANK LTD. GWALIOR 
v. 
RAMESH CHANDRA MANGAL AND ORS. 
September 26, 1984 
[Y. V. CHANDRACHUD, C. J., D. A. DESAI AND M. P. THAKKAR, JJ.] 
Administrative Law-Madhya Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, s. 
53 (4)-De/egation of power-Power conferred upon Apex Bank by Registrar of 
Cooperative Societies-Whether Apex Bank could 
re-delj~gate such power in 
some other authority-Held : No. The Apex Bank had no p.1wer to rede/egate its 
authority. 
The Board of Directors of the appeilant bank was superseded by the 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 Ape:\ Bank as ''offit:er-in-charge .. of the 
superseded bank. The Apex Bank appointed one S.P. Jain as the Chief Execu-
tive Officer of the appellant bank. 
Respondent No. 1, an employee of the appellant bank, was dismissed from 
~ervice 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 Addi. 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 m1odifying the order of 
the High Court, 
HELD : The Apex Bank had no authority or po~ver 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 powE:r conferred upon it by 
the Registrar and to in'test 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·E1 
I 
' 
' 
COOPT. BANK v. R.C. MANGAL (Chandrachud, C.J.) 
857 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 996 of 
A 
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 appel-
!ant. 
T.U. Mehta, S.S. Khanduja, R.D. Jain, Mehfooz Khan 
and 
B 
Yashpal Dhingra for the respondents. 
a 
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 r.termina-
ted on the ground that he had over-stayed the leave granted to him. 
Aggrieved by that order, respondent 1 raised a dispute under 
section 55(2} of the Act, before the Registrar of the Co-operative 
Societies. The Registar 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 reinstatment of respon-
dent 1 with full back salary and allowances. In an appeal filed by the 
Bank, the Addi. Registrar took the view that the only reme.dy which 
was open to respondent 1 was to claim damages for wrongful termina-
tion of his services and that, therefore, he could not be reinstated in 
service Respondent I 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 termina-
ting his services had no power to do so. The Board of Revenue set 
aside the ord.er of termination and remanded the matter to the Bank 
for disposal in accordance with law. The writ petition filed by the j 
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, 
D 
E 
F 
G' 
R 
A 
858 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1985] l s.c.R. 
therefore, respondent 1 should be deemed to be in service and
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.