1. The petitioner is one Chaturbhuj Sahai. He was an assistant in the Supply & Price Control Department of the Government of Bihar, but sometime in November, 1949, he was appointed a temporary Inspector, called Credit Agricole Inspector, under the Provincial Co-operative Bank (now called the Bihar State Co-operative Bank, Ltd.) at Patna. The petitioner says that he gave no Government service and joined his new post on 26-11-1949. He was then sent for training, after the completion of which he was posted at Katihar, which post he joined on 4-2-1950. On 31-1-1954, the Board of Directors of the Bihar State Co-operative Bank, Ltd. passed a resolution by which the posts of eight Inspectors, including that of Sri Chaturbhuj Sahai, were retrenched. The reason given was the heavy shrinkage in the trading activities of the Bank, some of which had come to a complete cessation. In pursuance of the said resolution of the Board of Directors of the Bank, the Secretary of the Bank communicated to the petitioner by means of a letter dated 13-2-1954, that the petitioner's services were terminated with immediate effect, and that in lieu of three months' notice he would be given three months' pay. This letter was despatched on 15-2-1954, and was received by the petitioner on 18-2-1954. The petitioner, it is stated, made over charge on 28-2-1954. On 26-2-1954, the Board of Directors confirmed the resolution which they had passed on 31-1-1954, and mentioned the petitioner by name as one of the eight persons whose posts had been retrenched and whose services were no longer required. On behalf of the petitioner it is contended that his services have been terminated by the Bank illegally and without authority. The petitioner has, therefore, prayed for a writ to be issued against the Chairman and Managing Directors of the Bihar State Co-operative Bank for reinstatement of the petitioner to the post of a Credit Agricole Inspector or to any other post on the same pay and in the same grade in which he was working on 15-2-1954. The application is contested by the Opposite party, namely, the Bihar State Co-operative Bank, Ltd.
2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged the following points in support of the petition. We are stating the points in seriatim first, and shall then consider them one by one firstly, it is contended that the services of the petitioner were terminated illegally with effect from 15-2-1954, though the resolution purporting to terminate the services of the petitioner was passed by the Board of Directors on a later date, namely, 26-2-1954. Secondly, it is contended that under the Staff Regulations in force in the Co-operative Bank, the petitioner could not be removed without the approval of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, and as no such approval was obtained before the termination of his services, the order was illegal. Thirdly, it is contended that the petitioner held a civil post under the State of Bihar and he could not be removed from service without giving him a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken in regard to him, as laid down in cl. (2) of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. Fourthly, it is contended that under cl. (g) of Article 19(1) of the Constitution, the petitioner who is a citizen of India, has the right to carry on his occupation of a Credit Agricole Inspector, and the Regulation or bye-law of the Bank’ under which he has been removed from service without giving him an opportunity of showing cause is void under Article 13 of the Constitution, because it is not saved under cl. (6) of Article 19 of the Constitution.
3. We now propose to consider these points in the order in which we have stated them. As to the first point, it is clear from the materials before us that the Board of Directors passed a resolution on 31-1-1954, to the following effect:
“The office note for the retrenchment of the eight Inspectors was considered and it was approved and confirmed.”
4. Mr. B.C Ghosh, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has contended that the said office note has not been produced by the Bank. The learned Advocate-General, who has appeared for the Bank, has referred us to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Bank on 15-7-1954, and Annexure A of the said counter-affidavit. In Annexure A of the said counter-affidavit there is an office note by the Secretary of the Bank. That office note gives the reasons for the retrenchment, mentions the names of 22 existing Inspectors and also suggests the names of the eight Inspectors whose posts should be retrenched on the ground of the shrinkage of the Bank's business. It is this office note which was considered by the Board of Directors on 31-1-1954, and the Board approved of the suggestion made by the Secretary and accepted his recommendation that the posts of eight Inspectors, including that of the, petitioner, should be retrenched, and in lieu of notice three months' pay should be given. This resolution passed on 31-1-1954, was confirmed, at a subsequent meeting held on 26-2-1954. It is not correct to say that the services of the petitioner were terminated on 26-2-1954, and not on 31-1-1954. It is clear to us that the petitioner's services were terminated as a result of the resolution passed on 31-1-1954, and the Secretary of the Bank thereupon informed the petitioner that his services were terminated with effect from 15-2-1954. This is not a case, as is contended for by Mr. B.C Ghosh, that the petitioner has been removed from service on a date earlier than the date on which the Board of Directors passed a resolution terminating his services.
5. The second question is if the Board of Directors had power and authority to terminate the services of the petitioner. Mr. B.C Ghosh has very strenuously contended that a large number of documents which he wanted from the Bank have not been produced and that the Bank are withholding relevant papers with regard to the removal of the petitioner. The petition which Mr. B.C Ghosh filed in this respect on 17-12-1954, was considered by a Bench of this Court on 20-12-1954, and the Bench passed an order that it was not necessary to direct the opposite party to produce the documents enumerated by the petitioner, but that such documents as were necessary for the disposal of the case would be called for by the Bench which hears the petition. The Bank have placed before us the bye-laws of the Bihar State Co-operative Bank, Ltd. These bye-laws have to be registered along with the registration of the Bank under Section 11 of the Bihar and Orissa Co-operative Societies Act, 1935. Bye-law 36(f) lays down that the Board of Directors may appoint and at pleasure remove officers and other employees other than the Managing Director as the work and interest of the Bank require.
6. A reference has been made before us to certain staff Regulations which the Registrar of Co-operative Societies had made for adoption by Co-operative Societies, including the Central Banks and the State Co-operative Bank. Such a set of Regulations was made in 1944. Whether these Regulations were adopted by the State Co-operative Bank is not clear from the materials placed before us. But R. 50 of the said Regulations states that the services of an officer of the Provincial Bank (State Bank) may be terminated when no longer required, or when he is medically unfit for further service, on giving him three months' notice or pay in lieu thereof. In 1947, a revised set of Regulations was circulated for adoption by the Co-operative Banks. This revised set of Regulations also contained a similar Regulation. Regulation 51 says that the services of an officer of the Provincial Bank may be terminated when no longer required etc., on giving him three months' notice or pay in lieu thereof. The learned Advocate-General has placed before us a copy of a letter dated 15-6-1953, by which the Bihar State Co-operative Bank, Ltd., suggested certain modifications in the revised Regulations sent to the Bank by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. In the Regulations which ‘the State Bank suggested, the relevant Regulation is Regulation 42. That Regulation states that the services of an officer of the State Bank may be terminated when no longer required on giving him three months' notice or pay in lieu thereof. On these materials it is clear to us that the Board of Directors of the State Co-operative Bank had power and authority to terminate the services of the petitioner on the ground of shrinkage of business, namely, on the ground that the services of the petitioner were no longer required for the business of the Bank. We do not think that the contention of Mr. B.C Ghosh that the Board of Directors has no power or authority to remove the petitioner is correct.
7. The resolution of the Board of Directors also shows that according to the staff Regulations in force in the Bank, the services of the Inspectors could be terminated on payment of three months' wages in lieu of notice. We are unable to accept the contention of Mr. B.C Ghosh that the removal of the petitioner was illegal. We may state here that neither the bye-laws nor the staff Regulations say that the approval of the Registrar is necessary for the removal of the petitioner. Therefore, the removal of the petitioner: cannot be held to be bad on the ground that the previous approval of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies was not obtained. Mr. B.C Ghosh has drawn our attention to an affidavit filed on behalf of the Bank which speaks that the approval of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies was obtained. The learned Advocate-General has placed before us a letter of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies dated 21-12-1954. This letter it appears, has been written after the present application was made by the petitioner. In this letter the Registrar of Co-operative Societies states that he made no comment on the proceedings of the Board of Directors dated 31-1-1954, and 26-2-1954, and that showed that he approved of the action taken by the Bank. Mr. Ghosh's contention is that an ‘ex post facto’ letter of the ‘kind produced by the Bank does not amount to previous approval of the Registrar. In our opinion, it is unnecessary to consider this point, because neither the bye-law nor the staff Regulations require the approval of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies before the services of the petitioner are terminated by the Board of. Directors.
8. As to the third point that the petitioner holds a civil post under the State of Bihar, the point can be disposed of in a few words. The petitioner has himself stated in his petition that he gave up Government service and joined his post under the Bank on 26-11-1949. It is true that the State Government does exercise some control over the Co-operative Bank by virtue of the authority given under some of the provisions of the Bihar and Orissa Co-operative Societies Act, 1935. That does not, however, mean that the petitioner holds a civil post under the State of Bihar. There are many enactments under which the State Government exercises control over statutory bodies or local authorities constituted by statute. That does not, however, mean that persons who serve under those statutory bodies or local authorities hold civil posts under the State of Bihar within the meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. In our opinion, Article 311 of the Constitution of India has no application to this case and, therefore, cl. (2) of the Article also does not apply.
9. As to the last contention of Mr. B.C Ghosh, based on Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, we do not think that the service of the petitioner, which is really a matter of contract between the Bank on the one side and the petitioner on the other, was an occupation of the kind contemplated in cl. (g) of Article 19(1). Assuming that it is an occupation, Article 19(1)(g) does not mean that a person who has been employed under the terms of a contract cannot be removed in accordance with those terms. To give such a meaning to Article 19(1)(g) will lead to a manifest absurdity. Neither are we inclined to think that the bye-law or staff Regulations under which the petitioner has been removed are unreasonable restrictions and, therefore, not saved under cl. (6) of Article 19, assuming for the moment that the staff Regulations come within the meaning of “law” as explained in cl. (3) of Article 13 of the Constitution. In our opinion, the argument based on Article 19(1)(g) is wholly without merit and must be rejected. For the reasons given above, we are of the opinion that the petitioner has made out no case for interference by us in the matter of his removal from service. The application is accordingly dismissed with costs. Hearing fee Rs. 64/- only.
K.S.B
10. Application dismissed.