U.P. State Co-Operative Land Development Bank Limited V. Chandra Bhan Dubey and Ors. (1998)

Citations: (1999) 1 SCC 741

Date of Judgment: 18/12/1998

Equivalent citations:  AIR 1999 SUPREME COURT 753, 1999 (1) SCC 741, 1999 AIR SCW 364, 1999 ALL. L. J. 463, 1999 (3) SERVLJ 124 SC, 1999 (1) ADSC 65, (1999) 1 BANKCLR 660, (1999) 1 LAB LN 1081, (1999) 1 ESC 325, (1999) 1 UPLBEC 296, (1999) 2 SERVLR 576, (1999) 1 LABLJ 633, (1998) 6 SCALE 670, (1998) 9 SUPREME 535, (1999) 1 SCT 593

Case No: N/A

Case Type: N/A

Appellant: U.P State Co-operative Land Development Bank Limited

Respondent: Chandra Bhan Dubey and Ors

Bench:

  • Hon’ble Justice S.Saghir
  • Hon’ble Justice D.P Wadhwa

Court: Supreme Court of India

Statutes Referred: N/A

Cases referred:

  • Sukhdev Singh and others vs. Bhagatram Sardar Singh Reghuvanshi and another [1975 1 SCC 421]
  • Rohtas Industries Ltd., & Anr. vs. Rohtas Industries Staff Union & Ors. [(1976) 2 SCC 82]
  • Executive Committee of Vaish Degree College Shamli & Ors. v. Lakshmi Narain & Ors. [(1976) 2 SCC 58]
  • Deepak Kumar Biswas vs. Director of Public Instruction [(1987) 2 SCC 252].
  • Praga Tools Corporation vs. Sh. C.A. Imanual [(1969) 1 SCC 585}

Facts

  • The case revolves around the application of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, mandating the State to act reasonably and avoid arbitrariness.
  • The U.P Co-operative Bank claimed to be an instrumentality of the State, subjecting it to judicial review under Article 14.
  • U.P Co-operative Bank faced a rule nisi from the High Court, arguing that failure to provide reasons for its actions would lead to the presumption of arbitrariness.

Issues involved

  • Whether the appellant is an “authority” and an instrumentality of the State.
  • Whether the appellant is amenable to writ jurisdiction of the High Court.
  • Whether the dismissal order passed against the respondent are in violation of service rules.

Contentions of Petitioner

The Petitioner side contended that –

  • The appellant U.P State Cooperative Land Development Bank Limited was incorporated under the U.P. Co-operative Land Development Bank Act, 1964, and is registered under the societies act. As a result, it is controlled by the provisions of the acts as well as the regulations established by these acts.
  • These rules are approved under section 122 of U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965.
  • It was contended that all the requirement for initiation and conclusion of proceedings were followed in the present case.
  • The proceedings were based on the reports of officers under whom the respondents worked, these reports formed the part of evidence.

Contentions of Respondent

The respondent side contended that –

  • The charges were denied by the respondent Dubey, he said that he will present his version of events in person before the Inquiry Officer.
  • The respondent further said that he was not able to examine or cross-examine witness as for that he required certain documents which were not provided to him along with the charges.

Judgment

It was held that the appellant body i.e. U.P Co-operative Bank was body governed by state government and the terms of employment of its employees especially those concerning disciplinary actions taken against respondents, are statutory in nature.

  • It was held that he writ petition against the appellant could be filed and T\the bench agreed with the High Court to this extent.
  • The impugned judgment of the High Court, which held that the respondents’ dismissal was unlawful, is thus allowed in appeals, and the respondents writ petitions are dismissed.

Ratio decidendi

N/A

Obiter Dicta

N/A

Conclusion

The case highlights the intricate relationship between state actions, Article 14, and judicial review. The distinction between public and private law remedies is a key element, and U.P State Cooperative Land Development Bank Limited argument for transparency and reasons sheds light on the evolving nature of legal remedies in the Indian context. The case provides a comprehensive analysis, drawing on legal precedents and specific contextual elements to navigate the complex interplay between constitutional principles and state actions.

Drafted By: Palak Mehta

Published on: February 16, 2024 at 11:16 IST

Related Post