Big Relief For Bank Employees! High Court cancels sacking of 48 assistant managers of Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Bank
The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court has quashed the termination of services of 48 assistant managers appointed in the Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Bank in 2016. The high court said that the competent authority could not terminate their services merely on the directions of the principal secretary without independently applying its mind.
Justice Rajeev Singh passed the order while allowing separate writ petitions filed by Manish Kumar and 47 others. The court quashed the orders dated June 7, 2019, and directed that the petitioners be permitted to resume duties on their respective posts.
However, it clarified that the period between their termination from service and reinstatement would be treated on the principle of “no work, no pay”. This means that the employees will not get salary for this period.
What was the dispute?
The dispute arose from the recruitment process for assistant managers initiated in 2015. 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% 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 had 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 govt letter dated April 27, 2019, directions were issued for cancellation of the appointments of the 50 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.
The court found that the management committee and the managing director had failed to independently examine the matter before terminating the petitioners’ services. On this ground, the court quashed the June 2019 termination orders and directed that the 48 assistant managers be permitted to resume their duties on their respective posts.
