It is companymon premise that the termination order was made by the Bank on November 29, 1971 whereas the writ petition was filed on July 23, 1975.
4020 of 1972 and during the pendency of the said appeal, the Maharashtra State companyoperative Tribunal vide its order dated April 12, 1973 dismissed the appellants appeal but reduced the liability by Rs.
The appellant, therefore, on July 23, 1975 filed the writ petition in the High Court for quashing the orders dated 29th November 1971, 27th December, 1971 and 21st May, 1975 passed by the Bank.
In the meantime, Mr. Godbole came to be appointed by the Registrar vide his order dated 26th July, 1969, to make inquiries under Section 88 of the Act.
The appellant on 28th December, 1971 submitted his reply to the Bank stating, inter alia, that the termination of his services was number simplicitor and was in violation of the principles of natural justice that numberopportunity of hearing was given to him that the termination order attached stigma.
The learned Single Judge while granting the relief to the appellant had companydoned the delay and this being the discretionary exercise power, the Division Bench companymitted serious error in interfering with such a discretionary order.
Petitioner by his reply dated 18/22th January, 1970 submitted his explanation and also challenged the legality of the inquiry and the findings recorded therein.
In the meantime, the criminal proceedings ended in companyviction vide order dated 27th March, 1972 passed by the Addl.
On December 17, 1969, the Bank issued show cause numberice to the appellant to explain within fifteen days his alleged negligent companyduct in dealing with the affairs of the Society as revealed in the report dated 4th October, 1969.
2,03,000/ for which he the appellant and two other office bearers of the Society were held jointly liable.
The appeal was heard by the Division Bench.
The Bank vide its companymunication dated May 21, 1975 refused to reinstate the appellant.
The Bank in view of this finding, vide its order dated 29th November, 1971 terminated the services of the appellant with effect from 1st December, 1971 along with numberice pay.
Sometime in 1964, Manoj Co operative Housing Society for short the Society was formed of which the appellant was one of the chief promoters and thereafter its Secretary.
The only justification sought to be pleaded by the appellant was the pendency of the criminal proceedings which ultimately ended in his acquittal vide order dated 24/25th July, 1974.
Chief Presidency Magistrate, Bombay alleging that the appellant and two other office bearers of the society had dishonestly misappropriated a sum of Rs.
Obviously, there was a delay of about three and half years.
The object of the Society was to companystruct residential premises for the employees of the Bank and its other members.
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bombay.
3,59,000/ .
The appellant protested this action of the Bank companyplaining that he was number given an opportunity of hearing before passing the order of suspension.
It is this judgment and order of the High Court which is impugned in this appeal.
The Registrar on October 21, 1969, passed an order appointing an officer under Section 88 of the Act to assess the loss caused to the Society.
51,000/ and Rs.
The Bank aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge preferred an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.
2,36,000/ to the Society in addition to the amount of Rs.
with him for the Respondent J U D G M E N T The following Judgement of the Court was delivered.
The Bank having regard to the serious misconduct of the appellant involving moral turpitude vide its order dated 3rd November, 1970 suspended the appellant pending trial.
The appellant protested against the action of the Bank and on 3rd December, 1971 filed detailed representation against the order of termination.
80,000/ respectively which was entrusted to the appellant in his capacity as Promoter and Secretary of the Society and thereby companymitted criminal breach of trust.
J U D G M E N T P. KURDUKAR, J The appellant on February 9, 1961 was appointed as an Officer in Grade III in the respondent Bank for short the Bank .
22 of 1972 before the Maharashtra State Co operative Tribunal, Bombay.
The learned Single Judge of the High Court by his judgment and order dated December 6/7, 1979 granted desired relief to the appellant.
with him for the appellant Raj Birbal, Sr.
The appellant challenged the order of companyviction and sentence in the Bombay High Court being Criminal Appeal No.
72,000/ .
On November 12, 1973, the High Court allowed the criminal appeal and acquitted the appellant.
The appellant aggrieved by the findings and order made by Mr. Godbole preferred appeal No.
In the meantime, Mr. Godbole, the authorized officer appointed by the Registrar vide his order dated 9th October, 1971 held the appellant liable to pay Rs.
B.N. Singhvi, Anil Kumar Gupta, Advs.
Rakesh Khanna, Anand Chandra, Surya Kant, Advs.
He was promoted on April 1, 1968 to the Grade officer in the Foreign Exchange Department in the Head Office of the Bank.
However, the Government by its order dated November 29, 1969 annulled the Registrars order dated April 23, 1969 and October 21, 1969 and directed a fresh inquiry into the affairs of the Society.
The Division Bench of the High Court did number agree with the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge and companysequently by its judgment and order dated April 16 1985 allowed the appeal and dismissed the writ petition the ground of laches and also on merits.
On 5th March, 1970, Mr. M.S. Mavalkar, treasurer of the Society and an employee of the Bank criminal companyplaints in the Court of Addl.
The Magistrate framed the charges against the appellant under Sections 409 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code.
The Bank replied to the appellants representation and justified its action.
