Lucknow, Aug 25 The Allahabad High Court on Tuesday quashed the June 2019 orders terminating the service of 48 assistant managers appointed in the Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Bank in 2016 and directed that they be permitted to resume duties on their respective posts.
Justice Rajeev Singh of the Lucknow bench passed the order while allowing separate petitions filed by Manish Kumar and 47 others, observing that an employee's services cannot be terminated merely on the recommendation or direction of another authority and the appointing authority must independently examine the matter and decide.
The counsel for the petitioners had argued that the bank's management committee issued the termination orders on the basis of direction issued by the Principal Secretary, Cooperative Department, and did not attribute any individual illegal act or misconduct to the petitioners.
The recruitment process for assistant managers initiated in 2015 was plagued by controversies. Initially, candidates were required to possess graduation degrees in certain specified subjects. Subsequently, with the approval of the competent authority, the eligibility criterion was modified to graduation in any subject with a minimum of 50 per cent marks.
A revised advertisement was issued on July 22, 2015. The petitioners were selected thereafter on the basis of a written examination and interview. An unsuccessful candidate, however, challenged the selection process before the High Court.
Following an interim order, the appointments of the selected candidates were made subject to the final outcome of the case. The petition was eventually dismissed on March 1, 2023.
Meanwhile, an inquiry was conducted into allegations of irregularities in the recruitment process. On the basis of a government letter dated April 27, 2019, directions were issued for cancellation of the appointments of the assistant managers.
The bank's management committee decided to terminate their appointments on May 30, 2019, and termination orders were issued on June 7, 2019.
Senior advocate Gaurav Mehrotra, appearing for the petitioners, argued that the termination orders did not attribute any individual illegal act or misconduct to the petitioners.
He submitted that their appointments had been approved by the competent authority and the selection process had thereafter been duly completed.
According to him, the actual basis for the termination was the direction issued by the principal secretary, Cooperative Department, which could not substitute the independent decision-making required of the appointing authority.
Allowing the petitions, the court observed that an employee's services cannot be terminated merely on the recommendation or direction of another authority.
The appointing authority is required to independently examine the matter and take its own decision.
The court found that the management committee and managing director had failed to independently apply their minds before terminating the petitioners' services.
