U.P. STATE CO-OPERATIVE LAND DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD. versus CHANDRA BHAN DUBEY AND ORS.

Citation: [1998] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 659 · Decided: 18-12-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. SAGHIR AHMAD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

' ' 
U.P. STATE CO-OPERATIVE LAND DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD. 
A 
v. 
CHANDRA BHAN DUBEY AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 18, 1998 
B 
[S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950-Articles 12, 226-Uttar Pradesh Co-
operative Land Development Bank constituted under Uttar Pradesh Co-
operative Land Development Bank Act, 1964-Writ petition against- C 
Maintainability of-Amenability to Writ jurisdiction of-Employees of the 
appellant Bank being governed by Statutory rules and regulations-
Managing Director and the Chief General Manager of the appellant being 
officials of the State sent on deputation to the appellant-Held, the affairs 
of the appellant bank are controlled by the State Govt., though ii functions 
as Co-operative Society amJ thus an instrumentality of the State or authority D 
as mentioned under Article I 2-Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Land 
Development Bank Act, 1964-U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965-Section 
122. 
Article 226-Public law and Private law-Whether differentiated under- E 
Held, prima facie from the language of Article 226 there does not appear to 
exist a divide between the Public law and Private Law. 
Articles 367(1); 372-General Clauses Act, 1897-Applicability to 
interpretation of constution. 
Service ·law: 
U.P. Co-operative Societies Employees' Service Regulations, 1975-
F 
. Regulations 2, Clause XI; 5; 102; 103; Chapter Vil, Regulations 84; 85-
Disciplinary Proce.edings-Rules of Natural Justice-Compliance of-
Respondents served with Charge sheets charging them with various charges-
One of them taking part fully in the proceedings conducted by the Inquiry G 
Officer while the other two respondents not doing so though replying to the 
Show cause notice-Disciplinary authority accepting the report of the Inquiry 
Officer and dismissing all the three respondents-Rules of Natural Justice-
Whether viliated-Held, all the requirements for the initiation and conclusion 
of the disciplinary proceedings have been followed and rules of natural H 
659 
660 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1998] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A justice observed-Respondents being apprised of the evidence against each 
of them and given opportunity of being heard in person and also to produce 
evidence in defence-Finding of the High Court that rules of Natural justice 
were vitiated set aside-UP. Rajya Sahakari Bhumi Vikas Bank Employees 
Service Rules, 1976-Rule 89-U.P. Co-operative institutional Services Board 
B 
Words and Phrases-Expression "Person" as accruing in Section 2(42) 
of General Clauses Act, 1897-Meaning of 
The Respondents in CA 514/85; CA 515/85 and 516/85 while working 
as Branch Accountants and Driver in the Appellant Bank were served with 
Chargesheets charging them with various charges. The Respondent in CA 
C 514/85 replied to the chargsheet and took part fully in the proceedings 
conducted by the Inquiry Officer. The Respondents in CA 515/85 and 516/ 
85 though replied to the show cause notice, did not take any part in the 
proceedings. The disciplinary authority accepted the report of the Inquiry 
Officer in respect of all the three respondents and dismissed them from 
D service. Against the dismissal orders, three writ petitions were filed in the 
High Court. The High Court while holding that the appellant was an 
"authority" or "state" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution 
was of the view that the dismissal orders were vitiated by non-compliance 
with the rules of natural justice and also in violation of the statutory rules 
as applicable to the employees of the appellant and allowed the writ petitions. 
E Hence the present appeals. 
On behalf oft.he appellant Bank it was contended that the appellant was 
not an "authority" or instrumentality of the State within the meaning of 
Article 12 of the Constitution and hence not amenable to writ jurisdiction. 
It was further contended that action against the respondents had been taken 
F in accordance with the Rules as applicable to the employees of the Bank. The 
orders of dismissal of the respondents were passed with he prior concurrence 
of the U.P. Co-Operative Institutional Services Board as required under Rule 
89 of the U.P. Rajya Sahkari Bhumi Vikas Bank EmployP.es Service Rules. 
G 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD: I. All the requirements for the initiation and conclusion of the 
disciplinary proceedings have been followed in the present case and rules of 
natural justice observed. Proceedings against the respondents were initiated 
on t

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.