the board of revenue set aside the order of termination and remanded the matter to the bank for disposal in accordance with law.
jain for two reasons in the first place the apex bank being an appointee of the registrar had numberauthority to divest itself of the power companyferred upon it by the registrar and to invest p. jain with that power.
jain was the registrar.
in an appeal filed by the bank the addl.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 996 of 1979 from the judgment and order dated 26.10.78 of the madhya pradesh high companyrt in misc.
jain the services of respondent 1 were terminated on the ground that he had over stayed the leave granted to him.
registrar took the view that the only remedy which was open to respondent 1 was to claim damages for wrongful termination of his services and that therefore he companyld number be reinstated in service respondent 1 than filed an appeal before the board of revenue which held by an order dated august 28 1974 that s.p.
the writ petition filed by the bank in the high companyrt of madhya pradesh was dismissed on october 26 1973.
he also ordered the reinstatement of respondent 1 with full back salary and allowances.
aggrieved by the judgment of the high court the bank has filed this appeal.
the registrar referred the matter to the deputy register who by an order dated february 27 1972 allowed the claim of respondent 1 on the ground that the order terminating the services was number in accordance with rules 44 and 45 of companyoperative bank employees service rules.
aggrieved by that order respondent 1 raised a dispute under section ss 2 of the act before the registrar of the co operative societies.
the only authority which could have companyferred the necessary power.
respondent 1 was appointed as an agent of the appellant bank which is a companyoperative society registered under and governed by the provisions of the madhya pradesh companyoperative societies act.
jain who held the enquiry against respondent 1 and passed the order terminating his services had numberpower to do so.
petition number 176/74.
jain mehfooz khan and yashpal dhingra for the respondents.
by an order dated june 5 1968 passed by one s.p.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by chandrachud c.j.
u. mehta s.s.
ghambir and ashok mahajan for the appellant.
n. kacker s.k.
khanduja r.d.
