IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.848 of 2008 Yogendra Prasad Singh @ Jogendra Prasad Singh son of Late Saryu Singh, resident of village Akauna, P.S. Punpun, district Patna. Versus 1. The Bihar State Co-operative Land Development Bank Ltd. through its Administrator, Bihar State Co- operative Land Development Bank Ltd., Budh Marg, Patna. 2. The Deputy Managing Director (Administration), Bihar State Co-operative Land Development Bank Ltd., Budh Marg, Patna. ----------- For the Appellant : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Sinha For the Respondents: Mr. Rajesh Prasad Choudhary. ------------ P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ------------ Dated, the 17th November, 2008. Counsel for the appellant submits that the Bihar Service Code and particularly Rule 74 (b) is not applicable to the employees of the Bihar State Co-operative Land Development Bank Ltd. (for short „Bank‟) and, therefore, the order retiring the appellant compulsorily on the ground of public interest is bad in law. 2. The argument does not deserve to be accepted for more than one reason. Firstly, this argument does not seem to have been specifically raised before the Single Judge as is apparent from the impugned order dated 24th September, 2008. Secondly, and more importantly, the Service Rules framed by the Bank for its employees do provide for compulsory retirement who has committed 21 years of - 2 - duty and 25 years of total service if the efficiency or conduct of such employee is not such as to justify his retention in service. Rule 232 of the Service Rules reads thus: “ The Bank may any bank employee who has committed 21 years of duty and 25 years of total service calculated from the date of his first appointment to retire from the Bank‟s service if it is considered that the efficiency or conduct of the employee is not such as to justify his retention in service. Where any Bank employee is so require to retire, no claim to any special compensation shall be entertained.” 3. Thus, there is provision for compulsory retirement in the Service Rules itself. Then there is Rule 237 which provides that the issues not covered in the Service Rules shall be governed by the provisions of the Bihar Service Code and other relevant Rules of the State Government. Although, there is a provision for compulsory retirement as provided in Rule 232 of the Rules but for what has not been provided in the rule 237, the aid can be taken from the provisions of the Bihar Service Code and, therefore, Rule 74(b) of the Bihar Service Code cannot be said to be excluded. Even if it be assumed that Rule 232 is a self-contained provision for the purposes of compulsory retirement and that excludes the applicability of the Bihar Service Code, the order of compulsory retirement is not rendered bad in law merely because it refers to rule 74(b) of the Bihar Service Code as the power to compulsorily retire an employee in the Bank can be traced to Rule 232. It is trite principle of law that wrong mentioning of provision does not vitiate the exercise of power if it is traceable to some provision in law. - 3 - 4. That the appellant has committed 21 years of duty and 25 years of total service from the date of his first appointment is not in dispute. He has not been able to achieve the target set for him. Thus, the order of compulsory retirement in public interest is in conformity with the Service Rules. 5. The Letters Patent Appeal has no merit. It is dismissed in limine. R. M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J AMIN/-