The Kurm anchal Nagar Sahkari Bank Lt d v. St at e of Ut t arakhand ot hers

That t aking int o considerat ion t he let t ers dat ed 21/ 11/ 2015 15/ 07/ 2015, subm it t ed by you, we are of t he firm opinion t hat you are no m ore int erest ed in rendering t he services t o t he bank . 06/ 11/ 2015 That keeping resignat ion is accept ed w.e.f. 09/ 05/ 2016. int erest of t he t he bank, your That in view of accept ance of you resignat ion your lien in t he bank as Manager HR ceases w.e.f. 09/ 05/ 2016. Signat ure Secret ary”

12. I n t he un- num bered first paragraph of Annexure No.13, is st at ed t hat t he let t er of resignat ion, along wit h rem inders, were perused by t he Com pet ent Aut horit y. The reference is t o t he let t ers of resignat ion dat ed 15.07.2015 and t he rem inder let t er dat ed 06.11.2015 and 21.11.2015, which have been reproduced above.

13. By t he said st at em ent , t he Secret ary accept s t hat he is not t he com pet ent aut horit y t o t erm inat e t he services of an em ployee. I n t he second un- num bered paragraph, it is st at ed t hat t he t hird respondent had subm it t ed her resignat ion under t he let t er dat ed

15.07.2015. I t is furt her st at ed t hat t he allegat ions 10 leveled by her in t he let t er dat ed 15.07.2015 have lost relevance because subsequent ly she has accept ed t o wit hdraw t he allegat ions. I n t he un- num bered t hird paragraph, is st at ed t hat , aft er t aking int o considerat ion let t ers dat ed 15.07.2015, 06.11.2015 and

21.11.2015, it is recorded t hat “ we are of t he firm opinion t hat you are no m ore int erest ed in rendering t he services t o t he bank” . The let t er is not count er signed by anybody else, ot her t han t he Secret ary, and it is furt her st at ed in t he un- num bered fourt h paragraph t hat t he int erest of t he bank, t he resignat ion dat ed

09.05.2016 is accept ed wit h effect from 09.05.2016.

14. A plain reading of t he let t er would disclose t hat t here is no reference t o any resolut ion of t he governing body or of t he st aff service com m it t ee, which t he learned Senior Counsel would cont end is invest ed wit h t he powers t o appoint and t erm inat e t he services of t he bank em ployees. The let t er is as bald as one could be. No provision - neit her in t he by- laws, nor in t he Act , or Rules is point ed out , which enables or em powers t he Secret ary t o t erm inat e t he services by accept ing a let t er of resignat ion. 11

15. Learned Senior Counsel has not been able t o point out any provision, which vest s any such powers or aut horit y in t he Secret ary t o det erm ine t he services of any em ployee. Be t hat as it m ay, as point ed out above, t he alleged let t er of resignat ion, in our opinion, does not const it ut e an offer t o resign. Resignat ion is cont ract ual, and is in t wo part s: ( i) an offer of t he em ployee t o resign and ( ii) accept ance of t hat offer and t erm inat ion of t he services of t he em ployee.

16. I n t he inst ant case, t he let t er of resignat ion is not addressed t o t he Com pet ent Aut horit y, nor is t he accept ance of t he com pet ent aut horit y placed on record. I t is cont ended by t he learned Senior Counsel, t hat not wit hst anding t he t hat t he accept ance of resignat ion was illegal or irregular, t he sam e could not have been int ervened by t he Regist rar, and t hat no aut horit y is vest ed under t he Act in t he Regist rar t o int ervene wit h t he orders of t he bank, be it eit her right ly or wrongly passed, and set aside t he sam e. He would t ake t he Court t hrough t he provisions of Sect ions 99( C) and 126 of t he Ut t arakhand Cooperat ive Societ ies Act , and would also place reliance on t he j udgm ent of a Coordinat e Bench of t his Court rendered in Sp e ci a l 12 A p p e a l N o .4 7 o f 2 0 1 3 , “ Th e Ut t a r a k h a n d Co - o p e r a t i v e Ba n k Li m i t e d Ve r su s St a t e o f Ut t a r a n ch a l a n d o t h e r s” , wherein it has been held t hat t he Regist rar cannot invoke t he provisions of Sect ion 126 t o det erm ine and annul any proceedings of t he bank, on t he prem ise t hat by- laws or regulat ions have not been fram ed.

17. We have no quarrel wit h t he said proposit ion, t hough we are const rained t o disagree wit h t he reasoning set out t herein. Be t hat as it m ay, a reading of Sect ion 70 would clearly negat e t he st and adopt ed by t he learned Senior Counsel. Sub- sect ion ( 1) ( c) of Sect ion 70, reads as under: - t o t he disput e relat ing r e f e r r e d ( 1) Not wit hst anding “ 7 0 . D i sp u t e w h i ch m a y b e t o anyt hing a r b i t r a t i o n .- cont ained in any law for t he t im e being in force. I f const it ut ion, m anagem ent or t he business of a co- operat ive societ y ot her t han a disput e regarding disciplinary act ion t aken against a paid servant of a societ y arises – ( a) ……. ( b) ……. ( c) bet ween t he societ y or it s com m it t ee and any past com m it t ee, any officer, agent or em ployee or any past officer, past agent or past em ployee or t he nom inee, heir or legal represent at ive of any deceased office, deceased agent or deceased em ployee of t he societ y; or a.”

18. The disput e bet ween t he m anagem ent and an officer or em ployee, or a past em ployee, is arbit rable by t he Regist rar under Sect ion 70. The except ion t o sub- 13 sect ion ( 1) of Sect ion 70, is t hat t he disput e should not relat e t o a disciplinary act ion. The disput es arising out of t he disciplinary act ion have been t aken out of t he am bit of Sect ion 70.

19. Here, in t he inst ant case, adm it t edly it is not a case of any disciplinary act ion having been init iat ed against t he em ployee. Even according t o t he bank, it is a case of volunt ary resignat ion. I n t hat view, t he cont ent ion t hat t he em ployee could not have approached t he Regist rar and ought t o have approached t he Civil Court , is wit hout foundat ion. I n fact , Sect ion 71 enables t he Regist rar t o refer t he disput es under Sect ion 70 for adj udicat ion by arbit rat ion. Furt her, sub- Sect ion ( 3) of Sect ion 70 places an em bargo on t he disput e being called in quest ion in any Court . I n view of Sub- Sect ion ( 1) of Sect ion 70, read wit h Sub- Sect ion ( 3) of Sect ion 70, t he cont ent ion t hat t he Regist rar has no aut horit y t o adj udicat e t he issue or t he claim of t he em ployee/ past em ployee is unsust ainable. I t is not in disput e t hat t hird respondent has relied upon on ot her provisions and preferred a revision before t he St at e Governm ent and it is t he case of t he pet it ioner t hat no sufficient opport unit y was given t o t hem but it is fairly adm it t ed t hat not ices 14 issued; t he records were sum m oned and t he Governm ent aft er looking int o t he records was pleased t o set aside t he purport ed let t er of accept ance.

20. The quest ion is whet her lack of sufficient opport unit y would be ground enough for t his Court t o int ervene and set aside t he order. From t he fact s narrat ed above, and as dem onst rat ed by t he records at hand, it is clear as daylight t hat t he t hird respondent never int ended t o resign. Rat her, it is m ore in t he nat ure of a com plaint and a t hreat t hat if her com plaint s are not addressed, she m ay be forced t o explore t he opt ion of a resignat ion.

21. A reading of Rule 26 of t he Rules, as ext ract ed supra, would dem onst rat e t hat a person desiring t o leave t he services of t he bank is required t o convey t he int ent ion, wit h clear t hree m ont hs’ not ice. None of t he let t ers even speak of put t ing t he bank on not ice, m uch less a clear t hree m ont hs’ not ice. The opt ion t o dispense wit h t he wait ing period, or t he not ice period of t hree m ont hs, is only conferred on t he bank under t he first proviso t o Rule 26( a) . 15

22. I n t hat view, we are unable t o com prehend, as t o how t he Secret ary has const rued t he sam e as a let t er of resignat ion. That apart , as recorded above, we find t hat no aut horit y under t he Rules is invest ed in t he Secret ary t o t erm inat e t he services of any em ployee, m uch less accept t he alleged let t er of accept ance.

23. I n t hat view, t he ent ire proceedings sm acks of gross abuse of power by an individual and by a person, who was incom pet ent t o exercise such aut horit y. I f t he subm issions of t he learned Senior Counsel t hat t he order im pugned is vit iat ed on account of lack of proper opport unit y is accept ed and t he sam e is set aside, t he sam e would result in t he revival of an order, which, by it self, has no legs t o st and. I n ot her words, an illegal order - an order wit hout com pet ence and j urisdict ion, would st and revived, which in our considered opinion is im pressible.

24. I n t his regard, we place reliance on t he ruling of t he Hon’ble Apex Court report ed in A I R 1 9 6 6 SC 8 2 8 , “ Ga d d e Ve n k a t e sw a r a Ra o Vs. Go v e r n m e n t o f A n d h r a Pr a d e sh a n d o t h e r s” . Paragraph 17 of t he sam e reads as under: 16 “ 17. The result of t he discussion m ay be st at ed t hus: The Prim ary Healt h Cent re was not perm anent ly locat ed at Dharm aj i gudem . The represent at ives of t he said village did not com ply w it h t he necessary condit ions for such locat ion. The Panchayat Sam it hi finally cancelled it s earlier resolut ions which t hey were ent it led t o do and passed a resolut ion for locat ing t he Prim ary Healt h Cent re perm anent ly at Lingapalem . Bot h t he orders of t he Governm ent , nam ely, t he order dat ed March 7, 1962, and t hat dat ed April 18, 1963, were not legally passed: t he form er, because it was m ade wit hout giving not ice t o t he Panchayat Sam it hi, and t he lat t er, because t he Governm ent had no pow er under S. 72 of t he Act t o review an order m ade under S. 62 of t he Act and also because it did not give not ice t o t he represent at ives of Dharm aj igudem village. I n t hose circum st ances, was it a case for t he High Court t o int erfere in it s discret ion and quash t he order of t he Governm ent dat ed April 18, 1963? I f t he High Court had quashed t he said order, it would have rest ored an illegal order - it would have given t he Healt h Cent re t o a village cont rary t o t he valid resolut ions passed by t he Panchayat Sam it hi. The High Court , t herefore, in our view, right ly refused t o exercise it s ext ra- ordinary discret ionary power in t he circum - st ances of t he case.” ( underlining by t his Court )

25. This posit ion in law has furt her been reit erat ed by t he Hon’ble Apex Court in t he case of “ St at e of Ut t aranchal Vs. Aj it Singh Bhola and anot her” report ed in 2004 6 SCC 800 in paragraph 9, wherein, t he Hon’ble Apex Court has been pleased t o hold in t he last sent ence of t he above paragraph as under : 17 “ …….it is well set t led t hat t his Court will not exer cise it s discr et ion and quash an order which appears t o be illegal, if it s effect is t o revive anot her illegal order” .

26. I n t hat view of t he m at t er, t he writ pet it ion st ands rej ect ed. There shall be no order as t o cost s. G. N A REN DA R, C.J. A SH I SH N A I TH A N I , J. Dt : 24 t h July, 2025 NR/ NITESH RAWAT DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=bea38a9cb7bca67cc3988ad93d563d9 5c70eb77fa0ea4758e401cf436bdce9fb, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=F691686B3C447434E89897BCDC 0B6567DCE4B7108B324FFED3C8A159F3BDD03 C, cn=NITESH RAWAT 18