: 1 : wp-275-11=.sxw USJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 275 OF 2011 Arif Mohd. Ghasswala ..Petitioner v/s. R.V. Iyer & Ors. .. Respondents ......... Mr. R.D. Bhatt for the petitioner Mr. S.K. Talsania, Sr. Counsel a/w Rony Pallath Joseph for respondent nos. 1 and 2. Ms. Subha Kher a/w Ms. Gaurangi Pujara i/b Little & Co. for respondent no.3. ......... CORAM : A.M. KHANWILKAR & R.Y.GANOO, JJ. DATE : 27th JULY, 2011. P.C. : 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, taken up for hearing. 2. This matter was extensively heard on 15th April, 2011. While dealing with the merits, the Court peremptorily observed that the impugned order dated 18th December, 2010 issued by the General Manager is without authority of law. In that, the petitioner was appointed by the Board of Directors. This, the action of removal of : 2 : wp-275-11=.sxw petitioner could be taken, only the Board of Directors could have issued such order and not the General Manager. On expressing that opinion, Counsel for the respondent bank submitted that there may be some regulation, which permits delegation of power of dismissal to the General Manager by the Board of Directors / Administrator. However, till now, no such provision has been brought to our notice. In the order dated 15th April, 2011, we had made it amply clear that in absence of any express provision permitting the Board of Directors to delegate the power of removal of an employee of the bank, who has been appointed by the Board of Directors, the Administrator would be free to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law, ignoring the impugned order dated 18th December, 2010 as that order was obviously without authority of law. 3. In furtherance of that liberty, the Administrator has issued show- cause notice to the petitioner on 3rd June, 2011. However, in the meantime, the appropriate Authority has already appointed liquidator in respect of the respondent bank. That order was passed on 23rd May, 2011. Indeed, the liquidator has taken over charge of the respondent bank only on 20th June, 2011. In that sense, issuance of show-cause notice by the Administrator on 3rd June, 2011 cannot be taken exception to. : 3 : wp-275-11=.sxw 4. Suffice it to observe that challenge in the present writ petition is to the order passed by the General Manager dated 18th December, 2010. This Court has already opined in the order dated 15th April, 2011 that in absence of provision empowering the Board of Directors to delegate its authority to remove the employee of the bank, who was initially appointed by the Board of Directors, the General Manager was not competent to pass order dated 18th December, 2010. On that finding, the impugned order dated 18th December, 2010 passed by the General Manager deserves to be quashed and set aside. The effect of this direction would be to restore status-quo ante, as operated prior to 18th December, 2010. That means, the petitioner will have to be deemed to be continued in service and would be entitled to such benefits, as may be available, to similarly placed employees provided in the scheme of arrangement for Transfer of specific Assets and Liabilities of the Memon Co-operative Ltd. to Bank of Baroda. It is not necessary for us to issue any further direction in that behalf as that is not the subject matter of the present petition. 5. The subject matter of the present petition is about the validity of order passed by the General manager dated 18th December, 2010, which, as aforesaid, has been set aside. Insofar as the consequential : 4 : wp-275-11=.sxw reliefs claimed by the petitioner to direct the bank to pay his salary, we are not inclined to issue that direction as the petitioner will have to pursue that remedy in consonance with the scheme of liquidation, as liquidator has already taken over the charge of the assets of the bank on 20th June, 2011. We grant liberty to the petitioner to pursue his remedy regarding payment of salary and other benefits for the relevant period before the liquidator, if so advised. 6. Petition is allowed on the above terms. (R.Y.GANOO, J.) (A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.)