Appeal dismissed, Bank of Patiala Staff Rules upheld, Board's authority affirmed.

The appeal was dismissed, and the Court upheld the validity of Rule 27 of the Bank of Patiala (Staff) Rules, 1954. The Court also affirmed the authority of the Board of Directors to frame the Staff rules, ruling that the rules were properly constituted and did not violate Articles 311 or 14 of the Constitution.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of Rule 27 of the Bank of Patiala (Staff) Rules, 1954.
2. Authority of the Board of Directors to frame rules after the termination of the President's rule in PEPSU.
3. Whether the Regulation Order had the force of rules framed under Article 309.
4. Whether Rule 27 violated Article 311 of the Constitution.
5. Whether the Staff rules were discriminatory and violated Article 14.
6. Proper constitution of the Board of Directors when framing the Staff rules.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Rule 27 of the Bank of Patiala (Staff) Rules, 1954:
The appellant challenged the validity of Rule 27, which provided for compulsory retirement, arguing it amounted to 'dismissal or removal' under Article 311 of the Constitution. The Court held that Rule 27 did not amount to dismissal or removal as it was another mode of retirement, enforceable between the age of superannuation and the minimum period of service indicated in the rule. Thus, the rule was upheld.

2. Authority of the Board of Directors to Frame Rules After the Termination of the President's Rule in PEPSU:
The appellant argued that the delegation of power to the Board lapsed with the termination of the President's rule. The Court held that the Regulation Order, though published later, came into operation on February 27, 1954, before the termination of the President's rule. The Court construed the expression 'things done' in Article 357(2) liberally, concluding that the Regulation Order, including the delegation of power to the Board, continued to be in operation beyond the specified period.

3. Whether the Regulation Order Had the Force of Rules Framed Under Article 309:
The appellant contended that the Patiala Services Regulations were existing laws made by the Maharaja and could not be changed to the disadvantage of public servants. The Court found that the Regulation Order was validly made and considered it unnecessary to determine whether it had the force of rules framed under Article 309.

4. Whether Rule 27 Violated Article 311 of the Constitution:
The appellant argued that Rule 27 was unconstitutional under Article 311. The Court referred to previous judgments, stating that compulsory retirement under a valid rule did not amount to removal under Article 311(2). Since Rule 27 provided for compulsory retirement without stigma and within the prescribed period, it did not violate Article 311.

5. Whether the Staff Rules Were Discriminatory and Violated Article 14:
The appellant claimed that different rules for different public servants in the same State were discriminatory. The Court rejected this argument, citing precedents that upheld geographical classification based on historical reasons. The differentiation in rules was thus not considered discriminatory.

6. Proper Constitution of the Board of Directors When Framing the Staff Rules:
The appellant argued that the Staff rules were invalid as they were framed by only four members instead of the required six. The Court held that a majority of the members of the corporation is entitled to exercise its powers, and this rule applied equally to a company. Therefore, the Staff rules were validly made by the Board of Directors.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed, and the Court upheld the validity of Rule 27 and the authority of the Board of Directors to frame the Staff rules. The Court found no violation of Articles 311 or 14 and confirmed that the rules were properly made by the Board.

---