Suresh Dahayat vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The Court held that the termination order (Annexure P-13) was bad in law and set it aside. The Court reasoned that while the petitioner failed to fulfill the condition of obtaining a valid computer certificate within the stipulated period, his absorption was from a liquidated bank. Therefore, if the terms of absorption were not met, the absorption order could at most be cancelled, but the petitioner could not be dismissed from service. The Court found no error in the respondent-bank not accepting the certificate from the private institution, as it was not issued by the University. However, the consequence of non-fulfillment of the condition should have been repatriation, not dismissal. The Court directed the respondents to pass an order repatriating the petitioner's services back to the Land Development Bank, and it would be for the liquidator of that bank to deal with the petitioner's terminal and retiral benefits. The repatriation order was to be effective from the date of the termination order and was to be passed within 30 days of the communication of the Court's order. The issue of whether the petitioner was entitled to an extension was rendered moot by his failure to obtain a proper certificate even within a further period.

Facts

The petitioner, Suresh Dahayat, was an employee of the Land Development Bank, which was later renamed the District Cooperative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank. Following the bank's liquidation, a scheme was framed for the absorption of surplus employees. The petitioner was absorbed into Respondent No. 3 - Bank on July 26, 2017, subject to obtaining a computer application certificate within two years, as per the Registrar Cooperative Societies' approval dated May 9, 2017. The absorption order allowed for termination or a one-year extension if the condition was not met. The petitioner obtained a computer certificate in 2018 from a private institution affiliated with MCN University, Bhopal. However, the respondent-bank did not accept this certificate. Subsequently, the petitioner's services were terminated on September 5, 2019, due to failure to obtain the required computer certificate. The petitioner passed away in 2022.

Key Issues

1. Whether the termination of the petitioner's services by Respondent No. 3 - Bank, on the ground of failure to obtain a computer certificate within the stipulated period, is legally sustainable, considering the terms of absorption and the nature of the certificate obtained? (Section 10 of the Madhya Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, and principles of natural justice). Petitioner's Arguments: - The petitioner argued that as per the absorption order, he should have been granted a one-year extension to obtain a proper computer qualification certificate. Revenue/State's Arguments: - The respondent-bank contended that the computer certificate obtained by the petitioner in 2018 from a private institution was not valid as it was not issued by the University itself, and thus the bank was justified in not accepting it. - The respondent-bank also argued that the petitioner failed to obtain the requisite certificate even within the extended period, if one were to be considered.