Civil Appeal No 996 of 1979 From the Judgment and Order dated 261078 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Misc
Petition No 17674
SN Kacker SK Ghambir and Ashok Mahajan for the appellant
TU Mehta SS Khanduja RD Jain Mehfooz Khan and Yashpal Dhingra for the respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHANDRACHUD CJ
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
By an order dated June 5 1968 passed by one SP Jain the services of respondent 1 were terminated on the ground that he had over stayed the leave granted to him
Aggrieved by that order respondent 1 raised a dispute under section SS2 of the Act before the Registrar of the Co operative Societies
The Registrar 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 reinstatement of respondent 1 with full back salary and allowances
In an appeal filed by the Bank the Addl
Registrar took the view that the only remedy which was open to respondent 1 was to claim damages for wrongful termination of his services and that therefore he could not be reinstated in service Respondent 1 than filed an appeal before the Board of Revenue which held by an order dated August 28 1974 that SP Jain who held the enquiry against respondent 1 and passed the order terminating his services had no power to do so
The Board of Revenue set aside the order of termination and remanded the matter to the Bank for disposal in accordance with law
The writ petition filed by the Bank in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh was dismissed on October 26 1973
According to the High Court since section 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 858 therefore respondent 1 should be deemed to be in service and be reinstated
Aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court the Bank has filed this appeal
We are in agreement with the conclusion to which the High Court has come though for somewhat different reasons which are as follows The Board of Directors of the appellant Bank was superseded by the Registrar of the Co operative Societies by an order dated July 25 1967 and its powers were vested in Madhya Pradesh State Cooperative Bank Jabalpur which is an Apex Bank as officer in charge of the superseded Bank
By Resolution No 23 dated May 19 1968 the Apex Bank confirmed the action of its ChairmanVice Chairman in deputing amongst others SP Jain as the Chief Executive officer of the superseded Bank
The Apex Bank had no authority or power so to appoint SP 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 power conferred upon it by the Registrar and to invest SP Jain with that power
The only authority which could have conferred the necessary power
On SP Jain was the Registrar
The Registrar did not confer that power upon SP Jain under Section 534 of the Act
In the result this appeal is dismissed with costs
We would like to add that as long as 16 years have passed since the impugned order was passed and that too by a person who had no authority to pass it
Secondly the consensus of opinion of the various authorities which have dealt with this matter is that in overstaying the leave granted to him respondent l was not guilty of misconduct
It is desirable and prudent that no further proceedings be taken against respondent 1 for the alleged default on his part which is the subject matter of the present proceedings
We modify the order of the High Court by directing that respondent l will be entitled to fifty per cent of the  back wages and i allowances only from June 5 1968 until September 30 1984
The appellant will back respondent 1 in its service with effect from October 1 1984
MLA Appeal dismissed


Summary:
The Board of Directors of the appellant bank was superseded by the Registrar of the Cooperative Societies and its powers were vested in the MP State Cooperative Bank which is an Apex Bank as officer in charge of the superseded bank
The Apex Bank appointed one SP Jain as the Chief Executive officer of the appellant bank
Respondent No 1 an employee of the appellant bank was dismissed from service by SP 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 Addl
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 modifying the order of the High Court  HELD The Apex Bank had no authority or power so to appoint SP 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 power conferred upon it by the Registrar and to invest SP Jain with that power
The only authority which could have conferred the necessary power on SP Jain was the Registrar
The Registrar did not confer that power upon SP Jain under section 53 4 of the Act
Therefore the said order had no existence in the eye of law
858D E 857