The Supreme Court dismissed the plea of former ICICI Bank Chief Executive Officer and Managing Director Chanda Kochhar challenging her termination.
Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul said this falls within the realm of private contract between the bank and employee and dismissed it. Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, who appeared for Chanda Kochhar said the Delhi High Court dismissed my petition and its completely wrong.
He said, “My client is the MD of ICICI Bank. It was not open to the bank to take total action against me of my earlier retirement and virtually recalling my retirement and others .”
Challenging the HC decision, Rohatgi said, “The question of maintainability has to be examined. I wanted to show you two different clauses and one doesn’t apply to me and there is no prior approval against me. “
To this, Justice Kaul said, “We wanted to know Mr Rohatgi the role of the RBI in the case.” Rophatgi replied, “Mandate of the statute, and the RBI has to go with this. Without the prior approval of the RBI, the decision was taken.”
He said, “Our case is not related to amendment but with legislature. No appointment, reappointment and they have converted my resignation to termination.”
Rohatgi asked whether termination can be done without approving the resignation is a question? The embargo is on the concerned bank.
Justice Kaul questioned the senior advocate if the writ petition is maintainable. “RBI in its wisdom had given its approval,” the Justice said.
Rohatgi added, “The employee is not covered under 35 B of Employees Act. How can my resignation be converted to termination? The RBI had no business to do this. RBI is dealing with millions of crores of rupees. I am also bringing a public element. The bank is governed by the CCI, SEBI.”
Justice Kaul asked if the RBI, did not approve your termination? Rohatgi replied, “If the RBI had not granted its approval for termination, then it would be nullified.” He explained that Chanda Kochhar’s termination is wrong. “What happens to my reputation? I almost worked for 30 years in the bank,” he said.
To this, the court said, “We are not inclined to interfere with the HC order”, before dismissing it.