Court holds that termination based solely on higher authority’s directives without independent evaluation is invalid; directs reinstatement with ‘no work no pay’ for termination period
In a significant judgment delivered on August 25, 2026, the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) quashed the termination orders of 50 Assistant Managers appointed in the Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Bank. The termination, which was executed on the basis of recommendations from the Principal Secretary of the Cooperative Department, was held to be invalid due to the absence of any independent application of mind by the appointing authority.
The termination orders had been issued following a complaint and subsequent inquiry alleging irregularities in the selection process for the Assistant Manager posts in 2016. The inquiry report observed that qualifications for the post were altered by the then Commissioner/Registrar of Cooperative Societies purportedly to facilitate appointments of relatives of certain officials. Based on this, the Principal Secretary issued directives to cancel the appointments, which were followed by resolutions and orders from the Managing Committee and Managing Director of the Bank.
The petitioners, led by Manish Kumar and Kamlesh Kumar Verma, challenged these termination orders through writ petitions, contending that their appointments were made lawfully under the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 and corresponding Service Regulations, and that their services were terminated without any proper investigation or disciplinary proceedings against them personally. They also highlighted that no chargesheet or sanction for prosecution had been issued against them.
The court examined the facts and procedural history, including the advertisement and recruitment process, interim orders passed in related writ petitions, and the inquiry report. It noted that the appointments were made after the Registrar/Commissioner prescribed the minimum qualification in accordance with Section 120(1) of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act and Regulation 7 of the 1975 Employees Service Regulations. The court further observed that the termination orders were passed solely on the directions of the Principal Secretary without the Managing Committee or Managing Director independently applying their mind to the matter.
Relying on the Supreme Court precedent in M.P. State Cooperative Bank Limited, Bhopal v. Nanuram Yadav and others (2007 (8) SCC 264), the court emphasized that termination of employees cannot be effected merely on the basis of recommendations from a higher authority or inquiry report without proper application of mind by the appointing authority. Termination orders passed in such a mechanical manner are invalid.
Consequently, the court set aside the impugned termination orders dated April 27, 2019, May 24, 2019, May 30, 2019, June 4, 2019, and June 7, 2019. The petitioners were directed to be reinstated in their posts with immediate effect. However, the period of termination was to be treated as ‘no work no pay’, meaning the petitioners would not be entitled to salary for that period but would be allowed to resume their duties henceforth.
This judgment underscores the importance of procedural fairness and independent evaluation in employment termination decisions within cooperative institutions and government bodies. It also reinforces that directions from higher authorities must be implemented only after due deliberation by the competent appointing authorities to avoid arbitrary dismissals.
Bottom Line:
Termination of employees based on recommendations of higher authority without proper application of mind by the appointing authority is invalid.
Statutory provision(s):
U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 Section 120(1), U.P. Cooperative Societies Employees Service Regulation, 1975 Regulation 7
Manish Kumar v. State of U.P., (Allahabad)(Lucknow) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2972958
