'Case Of Hurt Ego': MP High Court Quashes Suspension Of Cooperative Bank's CEO Who Refused MLA's Demand To Cancel Clerk's Transfer

The Madhya Pradesh High Court quashed the suspension of Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of District Central Cooperative Bank in Sidhi, observing that the action was not passed in the course of exercise of routine administrative functions but rather "passed in exercise of excessive powers and actuated by bias and at behest of MLA". 

The petitioner had moved a writ petition challenging the suspension order which mentioned that he had misbehaved and used unparliamentary language against a lady member of Legislative Assembly as well as In-charge Minister of the District and Minister of Cooperatives.

Justice Vivek Jain in his order observed:

"The petitioner being the Controlling Officer of the Bank, was well within jurisdiction to transfer the employee within the bank. In the complaint made to the Cooperative Minister and to the Incharge Minister of the District, nothing has been said that the MLA had approached the petitioner with public grievance of the constituency, but it is only mentioned that she had directly telephoned the CEO demanding cancellation of transfer of a particular employee and the CEO refused to accede to her demand. Therefore, it does not appear to be a case of MLA bringing to notice of the petitioner, some general public grievance within his or her constituency. No doubt only on the basis that proposal is initiated by the public representative, the ultimate order cannot be quashed. However, in the present case it is duly indicated from the facts available on record that it was the case of undue pressure being exerted and not a case of general public grievance of the constituency being brought to the notice of the bank management. It is in fact a case of the MLA feeling ego hurt by refusal of the petitioner to accept her demand of cancellation of transfer of Clerk and this led to the entire unpleasant institution". 

Background

On June 5, a joint representation, signed by three MLAs of Sidhi District, was forwarded to the In-Charge Minister. It was alleged that the petitioner misbehaved with a lady MLA as well as two other MLAs over a telephone call.

Additionally, when asked by the lady MLA to speak with the In-Charge Minister of the district, the petitioner allegedly used disrespectful language against him too. The MLAs concluded that the petitioner's conduct was acceptable and recommended his immediate removal. 

Acting on this letter, the In-Charge Minister, on the same day, recorded a note-sheet reiterating that the MLAs had spoken to the petitioner on a telephone call in a polite manner, whereas the petitioner used inappropriate language with the lady MLA. It was stated that despite being repeatedly asked not to speak in such terms, the petitioner allegedly maintained his tone and dismissed the authority of the government officials. The In-Charge Minister forwarded this note sheet to the Cooperative Minister, who endorsed it and passed it on to the Additional Chief Secretary, who marked it for immediate action and referred it to the Managing Director of the Bank. The petitioner was then suspended. 

The petitioner said that the suspension is actuated by ulterior motive and only to satisfy the alter ego of MLAs of the district and nothing else. He contended that no abusive or unparliamentary language was used and that the complaint was solely rooted in his refusal to comply with an MLA's demand to reverse a valid transfer order. 

The State argued that the suspension order was passed by the competent authority based on the misconduct defined under Clause 47.1.8 and 47.1.20 of the bank's service regulations. The respondents maintained that an officer of the bank was bound to maintain descent language and decency in his work but by using indecent language to a lady MLA he had flouted the service regulations. 

It was also contended that people's representatives of the concerned area can always bring to the attention of the competent authority under their area of constituency regarding the need to transfer or not to transfer any of the employees within their constituency because they are the people who represent the Will of public. It was argued that if any good or bad activities are going on within their constituency, then they are always within their competence to bring the said fact to the notice of the concerned authority.

Findings

Discussing the merits of allegations against the petitioner in a "prima facie manner", the court noted that the three MLAs in a June 5 joint letter stated that the indecent behaviour of the petitioner is unfortunate and unacceptable and therefore, he should be immediately removed from his post.

It said that on this letter, a note sheet was initiated on the same date by Incharge Minister of the District, who is not Cooperative Minister of the State. The court observed that this note sheet was moved to the Cooperative Minister, who signed it and forwarded it to the Additional Chief Secretary of Cooperative Department who wrote the note “for immediate action” and forwarded it to the Bank's MD which functions under Cooperative Department.

"Therefore, this note sheet leaves nothing to doubt that the suspension has been ordered at the asking and at behest of three MLAs, who first prevailed upon the Incharge Minister of the District, who then forwarded the proposal to the Cooperative Minister and then the matter was brought to notice of the Managing Director of the Bank, who suspended the petitioner," the high court said. 

The court observed that the note sheet did not contain any specific words or language that could reasonably be described as 'indecent'. The court noted that the quoted statements did not reflect any misconduct. 

The bench further highlighted that the petitioner was the Controlling Officer of the bank and was well within his jurisdiction to transfer an employee from one branch to another. 

The court rejected the argument of the Advocate General that the MLA was merely requesting the petitioner to speak to the Cooperative Minister. Given there were 45 such district cooperative banks in the state, the court opined, 'It is difficult to comprehend that how an MLA could ask the district level CEO of the Bank to talk to Cooperative Minister of the State'. 

The court noted that the letter and the note sheet clearly revealed that the MLAs "exerted undue pressure" on the petitioner to reverse the transfer of a clerk, from one branch to another. 

"The MLA in any of the letters and communications does not speak anything about the problems of the Bank or the employee who had been transferred, but only talks about her ego being hurt," the bench further noted. 

The court further said:

"This is not a case of an MP or MLA bringing to notice the public grievances within his constituency to the notice of an officer. It was the case where the public representative was projecting the cause of single employee holding the petty post of Clerk and was pressuring the Chief Executive Officer of the Bank to cancel the transfer order. It is not the case of espousing the cause of public as has been projected before this Court. Rather it is a case of espousing the cause of a Clerk of Bank and pressuring the CEO of the bank for cancelling transfer the transfer of Clerk and it appears that when the petitioner refused to buckle under the pressure of the Minister of the MLA that the MLA challenged the petitioner to talk to the Minister Incharge of the District and the Cooperative Minister". 

The court thus quashed the suspension order and directed reinstatement of the petitioner with all benefits for the suspension period. 

Case Title: Rajesh Raikwar v State of MP 

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 169

For Petitioner: Advocate Anil Lala

For State: Advocate General Prashant Singh with Advocate Kapil Duggal

Click here to read the Order