IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14114 of 2005 RAM JANAM SINGH Versus BIHAR STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.& OTHERS ----------- For the petitioner : M/s Ashok Kumar Sinha, Amrendra Kumar Sinha and Santosh Kumar Singh For the respondent Bank: Mr. K K Sinha ------- 3. 24.07.2008 By virtue of the order dated 14.10.2004 contained in annexure-6 petitioner who was working as an assistant with the respondent Co-operative Bank, along with many other staff, by a common order has been dismissed from service. This order of dismissal as contained in annexure-6 is under challenge in the present writ application. There are many a submissions which have been made at the bar while challenging the impugned order but they are not necessary to be gone into because there seems to be an inherent illegality in exercise of power by the Managing Director of the respondent Bank. There is a Staff Regulation which is in operation with regard to the employees working under the respondents. There are three categories of employees envisaged under the same who have been termed as officers, ministerial staff and lower staff. Regulation 33 of the Bank has vested power in different authorities with regard to exercise of disciplinary power. For the lower staff it is to be exercised at the level of the Secretary. For the officers it has to be the Board of Directors and for the ministerial staff the Managing Director has been vested with the authority but certain category of punishment with the approval of the Chairman of the Bank. - 2 - In the case of the petitioner who comes in the category of ministerial staff, as per the Regulation inquiry should have been conducted by a person appointed by the Managing Director and the Managing Director thereafter should have acted as a disciplinary authority and if the punishment of dismissal was to be awarded, approval of the Chairman in this regard ought to have been taken. But in this case the Managing Director in his wisdom decided to vest all authority within him. He was the inquiry officer as well as the disciplinary authority as is evident from the impugned order itself. The order as contained in annexure-6, therefore, is quashed being in violation of Regulation 33 of the Bank. If the respondent authorities are still interested in pursing the matter they may do the needful by exercising appropriate power and authority in conformity with the Regulation 33. The writ application is allowed. rkp (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J)