Research › Browse › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

1996 DIGILAW 453 (MP)

P. W. KELKAR v. STATE OF MADBYA PRADESH

1996-04-30

N.P.SINGH

body1996
N. P. SINGH, J. ( 1 ) IN this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution, the petitioner prayes for issuance of writs of certiorari/mandamus for setting aside the order of his suspension dated 17-1-1996, as contained in Annexure-P/7 and restraining the respondents from taking any prejudicial action against the petitioner on the basis of declaration made by the respondent No. 2/deputy Chief Minister on the floor of Vidhan Sabha. ( 2 ) THE grievance of the petitioner is that he has been suspended from service on account of the declaration made by the respondent No. 2/deputy chief Minister of the State on the floor of the Vidhan Sabha dated 28-11-1995 without any application of mind and holding any preliminary enquiry into the allegations. ( 3 ) THE case of the petitioner, who holds the office of the Executive director (Projects) in the establishment of the respondent No. 4/m. P. State co-operative Oil Seeds Growers Federation Limited, Bhopal, was given additional charge of Managing Director, Regional Soyabean Producers Cooperative unit during the period July 1992 to September 1993. The Farmer member of the Union were required to make purchases for themselves, for which the Union Society advises rates of purchase. It is the settled practice of the Farmers-Union to make purchases of various items at the rates approved by the Federation at its Head Office at Bhopal and also from the same person invariably whose rates have been approved. During the period when the petitioner was holding the additional charge of Managing Director, regional Soyabean Producers Co-operative Union, he was required to approve the rates for purchase of Tarpaulinses. A circular was issued by the federation on 9-10-1*92 to the Executive Director (Projects) and the Managing director of Regional Soyabean Producers Co-operative Union for procurement of Soyabean, wherein it was stated that agreement should be made for purchage of varioous items including Tarpaulins, etc. It was further stated that the Union may approve the rates for the purchases as per the rates approved by the Federation. Pursuant to the circular of the Federation dated 9-10-1992, the petitioner obtained the rates from the trader of Tarpaulins was which had already been approved by the Federation. It was further stated that the Union may approve the rates for the purchases as per the rates approved by the Federation. Pursuant to the circular of the Federation dated 9-10-1992, the petitioner obtained the rates from the trader of Tarpaulins was which had already been approved by the Federation. The petitioner negotiated with the traders for further reduction of rates The negotiated rates with the traders were lower than the rates already approved by the federation and the same were recommended by the petitioner for purchase by the Primary Societies for sale to the Farmers. ( 4 ) HOWEVER, a false and frivolous complaint was made to the Economic offences Wing alleging irregularity in the approval of rates by the petitioner only on the ground that tenders were not called. The Economic offences Wing vide letter dated 9-3-1995 to the Managing Director of the respondent No. 4 called for a detailed report of the procedure adopted for the purckase of Tarpaulins in the Union Office at Ujjain and a detailed enquiry was made into the complaint and it was found that the conduct of the petitioner was beyond doubt and he acted in the best interest of the farmers in approving the rate after due negotiations with the traders. The Managing director informed the Economic Offences Wing that no irregularity was committed by the petitioner. The Ecoaomic Offences Wing, being satisfied with the reply of the Managing Director, did not find any case to proceed further in the complaint. ( 5 ) THE respondent No. 2/deputy Chief Minister of the State, who was also incharge of Agriculture and Co-operation in the Government of Madhya pradesh at the relevant time, however, made a declaration on the floor of the vidhan Sabha on 28-11-1995 for suspension of the petitioner from service, making accusation against him. The declaration made by the respondent no. 2, was not preceded by any enquiry whatsoever on any of the allegations. In order to implement the declaration made by the respondent No. 2 about the suspension of the petitioner, and various other officers, the respondent no. 2 issue orders in the Note-Sheet dated 11-12-1993, as contained in Annexure p/6, to the Agriculture Production Commissioner-cum-Chairman of oil Seeds Growers Federation. The respondent No. 3/oilfed and Agriculture production Commissioner forwarded the note-sheet of the respondent No. 2 the respondent No. 5 to take immediate action. 2 issue orders in the Note-Sheet dated 11-12-1993, as contained in Annexure p/6, to the Agriculture Production Commissioner-cum-Chairman of oil Seeds Growers Federation. The respondent No. 3/oilfed and Agriculture production Commissioner forwarded the note-sheet of the respondent No. 2 the respondent No. 5 to take immediate action. The respondent No. 5/ managing Director. M. P. State Co-operative Oil Seeds Growers Federation placed the matter before Kamkaj Samiti on 17-1-1996 in which a decision was taken to implement the declaration of the respondent No. 2 made on the floor of the Vidhan Sabha and the petitioner was suspended from service vide order dated 17-1-1996, as contained in Annexure-P/7. ( 6 ) THE respondents raised a preliminary objection about the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the respondent No. 4 is a co-operative Society registered under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and is not "state" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court and an alternative remedy is available to the petitioner for raising dispute before the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies, as provided under Section 55 (2) of the M. P. Cooperative societies Act, 1960. ( 7 ) THE contention of the respondents is that the petitioner while holding additional charge of Managing Director, Regional Soyabean Produces co-operative Union Limited, Ujjain, had engaged for purchase of tarpaulines below the approved rates fixed by the Federation. Further contention of the respondents is that the allegation against the petitioner was enquired into by the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, who fund the petitioner responsible for committing all sorts of irregularities in purchase of tarpaulines. The petitioner has been suspended on the recommendation of the Kamkaj Samiti on the basis of preliminary enquiry conducted by the Joint registrar, Co-operative Societies in accordance with Regulation 20 of chapter X of the Madhya Pradesh Rajya Tilhan Utpadak Sahakari Sangh limited (Recruitment, Classification and Condition of Service) Regulations, 1980. The respondents have denied the allegation of the petitioner that the petitioner has been suspended at the behast of the Deputy Chief Minister/ respondent No. 2. ( 8 ) IT is however, evident that the order of suspension of the petitioner was announced by the respondent No. 2 on the floor of the House 28/11/1995 before conducting any equiry against the petitioner. ( 8 ) IT is however, evident that the order of suspension of the petitioner was announced by the respondent No. 2 on the floor of the House 28/11/1995 before conducting any equiry against the petitioner. The respondent No. 2 not only made a simple declaration for suspension of the petitioner but he pursued the matter further by writing a note-sheet to the Agriculture Production commissioner, who endorsed the note-sheet of the respondent No. 2 to the Managing Director of the Oil Seeds Federation. ( 9 ) FROM the agenda of the Kamkaj Samiti of Oil Federation it is obvious that the petitioner was suspended in view of the declaration made by the respondent No. 2/dy. Chief Minister and not on consideration of the enquiry report of the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies. There is nothing on record to show that the Kamkaj Samiti ever passed order for initiating a preliminary enquiry against the petitioner. Therefore, suspension of the petitioner without initiating preliminary enquiry by the competent authority and without hearing the petitioner is violative of the principle of natural justice. ( 10 ) AS regards the preliminary objections that no writ will lie against a Co-operative Society, which is a private organisation, no-doubt, the Court should be reluctant to issue a mandate against a Co-operative Society. But when the Co-operative Society proceeds in a pre-judicial manner without observing the due process of law, a writ would lie against that Co-operative society to keep that Society within its bound. ( 11 ) AS regards the alternative remedy of raising the dispute before the registrar, Co-operative Societies is concerned, it is obvious that the Registrar is one of the member of the Karakaj Samiti and he was a party to the decision for suspension of the petitioner in the meeting of the Kamkaj Samiti held on 17-1-1996. Since the rerpondent No. 2 had made a declaration on the floor of Vidhan Sabha and he pursued the matter of suspension of the petitioner, no justice was expected from the Registrar of the Co-operative societies to set aside the order of suspension of the petitioner, as the Registrar was not expected to act against the declaration of the respondent No. 2/deputy Chief Minister made on the Floor of the Vidhan Sabha. Therefore, no efficacious remedy for redressal of the grievance of the petitioner was possible before the Registrar, Co-operative Societies. Therefore, no efficacious remedy for redressal of the grievance of the petitioner was possible before the Registrar, Co-operative Societies. ( 12 ) ON a careful consideration of the case, it appears that the order of suspension has been passed by the Kamkaj Samiti, which consists mostly of Government Officials, who carried out to the declaration of respondent No. 2/dy. Chief Minister without any application of mind. ( 13 ) FOR the reasons mentioned above, the impugned order of suspension of the petitioner cannot be sustained. Accordingly it is quashed and in the result petition succeeds and is allowed but without any order as to costs. ( 14 ) IT will, however, be open to the respondents to enquire into the allegation against the petitioner and take an appropriate decision in accordance with law. .