Judgment ( 1. ) THIS order will decide W. P. No. 7114/2002 (Zila Sahakari Krishi Aur gramin Vikas Bank Maryadit, Mandla and others Vs. Teerath Prasad Rajak and another), W. P. No. 7115/2002 (Zila Sahakari Krishi Aur Gramin Vikas bank Maryadit, Mandla and others Vs. Vijay Kumar Shrivas and another),w. P. No. 7116/2002 (Zila Sahakari Krishi Aur Gramin Vikas Bank Maryadit, mandla and others Vs. Phool Singh Tandeshwar and another), W. P. No. 7117/2002 (Zila Sahakari Krishi Aur Gramin Vikas Bank Maryadit, Mandla and others Vs. Nand Kumar Tiwari and another), W. P. No. 7118/2002 (Zila sahakari Krishi Aur Gramin Vikas Bank Maryadit, Mandla and others Vs. Satish Kumar Songsare and another) and W. P. No. 7119/2002 (Zila Sahakari krishi Aur Gramin Vikas Bank Maryadit, Mandla and others Vs. Munna Lal soni and another) involving similar facts and law. The facts are taken from w. P. No. 7113/2002 (Zila Sahakari Krishi Aur Gramin Vikas Bank Maryadit, mandla and others Vs. Vasudev Gupta and another ). ( 2. ) RESPONDENT Vasudev Gupta and other respondents of other cases are employees of petitioner/bank. As the election of said Bank could not be held within the stipulated period, consequently the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, invoking the powers of Registrar under sub-section 8 (ii)of Section 49 of M. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as act for short) appointed Collector, Mandla as Officer -in -charge of the bank and directed to work, till the elections are held, with direction to manage the affairs of the Bank. This order (Annexure P-2) was passed on 15-2-1997. Thereafter, vide order dated 3-3-2000 the respondents were retired compulsorily invoking the powers under sub-rule 71 (1) of M. P. Sahakari Krishi Aur gramin Vikas Bank Karmachari Seva (Niyojan, Nibandhan tatha Unki Karya sthiti) Niyam, 1983. Respondents aggrieved by aforesaid order filed a dispute under Section 55 (2) of the Act, before Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, jabalpur, which was registered as Case No. 55 (2)-7/2000. The Joint Registrar found that the order retiring compulsorily the respondents was not approved by the Registrar, which was necessary for the Officer -in -charge and the officer -in -charge can not take the policy decision as per circular dated 9-6-1989 and the Officer -in -charge - Collector, Mandla was appointed to discharge the functions of the Bank and he was having no right to take policy decision. Consequently, the order directing retirement compulsorily of respondents is illegal and accordingly it was set aside. Aggrieved by the order (Annexure A- 6), which is identical in all the cases on facts and law, the Bank has filed present petitions. ( 3. ) THE contentions of learned Counsel for petitioners is as under:- (1) That the Commissioner -cum -Registrar, Co-operative societies vide Annexure P-l dated 25-8-99 has amended the service conditions and accordingly any employee who has attained the age of 50 years or completed 20 years of service may be retired, without showing any reason, by serving three months notice or payment of three months salary. As the aforesaid rule empowers the Officer -in -charge to retire any employee compulsorily, then there was no necessity to seek approval from the registrar. (2) That the aforesaid order under sub-section 8 (ii) of Section 49 may be read with sub-section (13) of Section 53, which empower the Officer -in -charge to exercise all or any of the powers and to discharge all or any of the functions of the committee or of any officer of the society, and to take all such actions, as may be required in the interest of the society. In the circumstances, the order passed by the Officer -in -charge was valid and ought not to have been set aside. In this regard, learned Counsel for petitioners has relied upon the judgment of Apex Court in Bishwanath Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar and others, (2001) 2 SCC 305 , wherein it has been held in Para 12, which reads as under:- "12. Compulsory retirement in service jurisprudence has two meanings. Under the various disciplinary rules, compulsory retirement is one of the penalties inflicted on a delinquent government servant consequent upon a finding of guilt being recorded in disciplinary proceedings. Such penalty involves stigma and can not be inflicted except by following procedure prescribed by the relevant rules or consistently with the principles of natural justice if the field for inflicting such penalty be not occupied by any rules. Such compulsory retirement in the case of a Government servant must also withstand the scrutiny of Article 311 of the Constitution. Such penalty involves stigma and can not be inflicted except by following procedure prescribed by the relevant rules or consistently with the principles of natural justice if the field for inflicting such penalty be not occupied by any rules. Such compulsory retirement in the case of a Government servant must also withstand the scrutiny of Article 311 of the Constitution. Then there are service rules, such as Rule 56 (j) of the Fundamental Rules, which confer on the Government or the appropriate authority, an absolute (but not arbitrary) right to retire a Government servant on his attaining a particular age or on his having completed a certain number of years of service on formation of an opinion that in public interest it is necessary to compulsorily retire a Government servant. In that case, it is neither a punishment nor a penalty with loss of retiral benefits. (See Shyamlal Vs. State of U. P. , Brij mohan Singh Chopra Vs. State of Punjab, S. Ramachandra Raju vs. State of Orissa, Baikuntha Nath Das Vs. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada ). More appropriately, it is like premature retirement. It does not cast any stigma. The Government servant shall be entitled to the pension actually earned and other retiral benefits. So long as the opinion forming basis of the order for compulsory retirement in public interest is formed bona fide, the opinion can not be ordinarily interfered with by a judicial forum. Such an order may be subjected to judicial review on very limited grounds such as the order being malafide, based on no material or on collateral grounds of having been passed by an authority not competent to do so. The object of such compulsory retirement is not to punish or penalise the Government servant but to weed out the worthless who have lost their utility for the administration by their insensitive, unintelligent or dubious conduct impeding the flow of administration or promoting stagnation. The country needs speed, sensitivity, probity, non-irritative public relation and enthusiastic creativity which can be achieved by eliminating the dead wood, the paper logged and callous (See s. Ramachandra Raju Vs. State of Orissa ). The country needs speed, sensitivity, probity, non-irritative public relation and enthusiastic creativity which can be achieved by eliminating the dead wood, the paper logged and callous (See s. Ramachandra Raju Vs. State of Orissa ). We may with advantage quote the following passage from this decision : (SCC p. 430, Para 9)"though the order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment and the Government servant on being compulsorily retired is entitled to draw all retiral benefits, including pension, the government must exercise its power in the public interest to effectuate the efficiency of service. The dead wood needs to be removed to augment efficiency. Integrity of public service needs to be maintained. The exercise of power of compulsory retirement must not be a haunt on public servant but act as a check and reasonable measure to ensure efficiency in service, and free from corruption and incompetence. The officer would go by reputation built around him. In appropriate case, there may not be sufficient evidence to take punitive act of removal from service. But his conduct and reputation is such that his continuance in service would be a menace in public service and injurious to public interest. " Contending the aforesaid, learned Counsel for petitioners submits that order retiring compulsorily was within the jurisdiction of Officer -in -charge, which has been passed in the interest of Society and the Joint Registrar erred in holding that the approval of Registrar was necessary. ( 4. ) LEARNED Counsel for respondents on the contrary contended that the order passed by the Joint Registrar is well reasoned and based on proper consideration of law. The Officer- in -charge was appointed to meet the exigencies as per sub-section 8 (ii) of Section 49 and the entire purpose of appointment of Officer -in -charge was to hold election as early as possible. Even if it is assumed that the aforesaid Officer -in -charge was appointed under sub-section (4) of Section 53 of the Act, even then he was not having power retire compulsorily any employee of the Society and in this regard it was necessary to seek approval from the Registrar. In this regard he relied upon the Apex Court judgment in The Gwalior District Co-operative Central Bank ltd. , Gwalior Vs. In this regard he relied upon the Apex Court judgment in The Gwalior District Co-operative Central Bank ltd. , Gwalior Vs. Ramesh Chandra Mangal and others ( AIR 1985 SC 337 ) and contends that Apex Court held that under Section 53 (4) of the Act, the officer -in -charge can not terminate the service of any employee. He has also flied upon the Division Bench decision of this Court in Govind Arya Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and another ( AIR 1985 MP 34 ) for the same ratio. Another contention of learned Counsel for respondents is that under Section 48-C of he Act, powers of committee are envisaged and under this Section (e) (ii) provides that committee though having power to frame policies concerning qualifications, recruitment, service conditions of the staff and other matters relating to staff with the approval of the Registrar. And without approval of order by Registrar, terminating the services of respondents as compulsorily retired is not valid and has rightly been set aside by the Joint Registrar. ( 5. ) CONSIDERING the rival contention of parties, the following facts are not in dispute :- (1) That on 3-3-2000 respondents were retired compulsorily invoking service condition No. 71 (1), as per decision of Staff sub-Committee, which was headed by Officer -in -charge. (2) That the Officer -in -charge was appointed under sub-section 8 (ii) of Section 49 of the Act, which is apparent from order (Annexure P-2 ). (3) Though there is no specific order in this case by which officer -in -charge has exercised his powers under Section 53 (4)of the Act, but Section 53 (4) provides that the aforesaid Committee will discharge all its function. (4) That the Officer -in -charge has not sought any approval from registrar to retire compulsorily the respondents. ( 6. (3) Though there is no specific order in this case by which officer -in -charge has exercised his powers under Section 53 (4)of the Act, but Section 53 (4) provides that the aforesaid Committee will discharge all its function. (4) That the Officer -in -charge has not sought any approval from registrar to retire compulsorily the respondents. ( 6. ) FOR ready reference the provisions of Sections 48-C, 49 (8) (ii), 53 (4) and 53 (13) deserves to be seen, which reads as under :- "48-C. Powers of Committee.- The Board or the Committee of a society shall in accordance with the bye-laws, have power to- (a) admit and terminate membership; (b) elect the Chairman and other office bearers; (c) remove from office the Chairman and office bearers; (d) fix staff strength with the approval of the Registrar; (e) frame policies concerning- (i) organisation and provisions for services to members; (ii) qualifications, recruitment, service conditions of the staff and other matters relating to staff with the approval of the Registrar; (iii) mode of custody and investment of funds (iv) manner of keeping accounts; (v) mobilisation, utilisation and investment of funds; (vi) monitoring and management of information system including statutory returns to be filed; (f) place the annual report, annual financial statements, plan and budget for the approval of the general body; (g) consider audit and compliance reports and place the same before the general body; and (h) undertake such other functions as specified in the bye-laws. 49 (8) (ii ). If the Committee fails to hold election and has not; handed over the charge on expiration of the term, under sub section (7-A) or extended term under sub-section (7-AA) to the registrar or any officer authorised by him on his behalf, all the members of the committee shall be deemed to have vacated their seats and the Registrar shall assume charge and hold election as early as possible. 53 (4 ). The person or persons so appointed, shall subject to the control of the Registrar and to such instructions as he may, from time to time, give, have power to exercise all or any of the powers and to discharge all or any of the functions of the committee or of any officer of the society, and to take all such actions, as may be required in the interest of the society. 55 (13 ). 55 (13 ). Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, or rules made thereunder or bye-laws of society, if the committee of society ceases to function due to order of any Court or otherwise, the Registrar (may appoint a person or committee of persons temporarily) till the Court order is vacated or the new elections are held and the Committee takes charge. " ( 7. ) UNDER Section 48-C, which has been incorporated w. e. f. 22-6-1995, it is specifically provided that, the Board or the Committee of the society shall in accordance with the bye-laws, has power to frame policy with qualification, recruitment, service conditions of the staff and other matters relating to staff with the approval of the Registrar. Section 49 (8) (ii) of the Act provides to meet the exigencies when the committee fails to hold election and has not handed over the charge on expiration of the term, under sub- section (7-A) or extended term under sub-section (7-AA) to the Registrar or any officer authorised by him on his behalf, all the members of the Committee shall be deemed to have vacated their seats and the Registrar shall assume charge and hold election as early as possible. ( 8. ) IN view of aforesaid, it is apparent that in the event the Committee fails to hold elections, the Registrar shall assume charge and hold elections as early as possible. As the aforesaid elected body term was expired, in the circumstances the Registrar has exercised the aforesaid power. As the Committee of society ceased to exist, due to the order of Registrar, the Registrar appointed Collector as Officer -in -charge till the new elections are held. In view of the provision of Section 53 (4) of the Act, which provides that he will exercise all or any of the powers and to discharge all or any of the functions of the Committee or of any officer of the society, and to take all such actions, as may be required in the interest of the society. In these circumstances, it is apparent that the Officer -in -charge appointed by the Registrar was having powers as envisaged under Section 53 (4) read with Section 53 (13) of the Act. ( 9. In these circumstances, it is apparent that the Officer -in -charge appointed by the Registrar was having powers as envisaged under Section 53 (4) read with Section 53 (13) of the Act. ( 9. ) THE Apex Court in the case of The Gwalior District Co-operative central Bank Ltd. , Gwalior (supra) has considered the powers of Officer -in -charge under Section 53 (4) of the Act and held in Paras 2,3 and 4 as under:- "2. Aggrieved by that order, respondent No. 1 raised a dispute under Section 55 (2) of the Act, before the Registrar of the co-operative Societies. The Registrar referred the matter to the deputy Registrar, who by an order dated Feb. 27,1972, allowed the claim of respondent No. 1 on the ground that the order terminating the services was not in accordance with Rules 44 and 45 of the Co-operative Bank/employees Service Rules. He also ordered the reinstatement of respondent No. 1 with full back salary and allowance. In an appeal filed by the Bank, the Addl. Registrar took the view that the only remedy which was open to respondent No. 1 was to claim damages for wrongful termination of his services and that, therefore, he could not be reinstated in service. Respondent No. 1 then filed an appeal before the Board of Revenue which held by an order dated Aug. 28, 1974, that s. P. Jain who held the enquiry against respondent No. 1 and passed the order terminating his services had no power to do so. The Board of Revenue set aside the order of termination and remanded the matter to the Bank for disposal in accordance with law. The writ petition filed by the Bank in the High Court of madhya Pradesh was dismissed on Oct. 26,1978. According to the High Court, since S. P. Jain had no authority to hold the enquiry or to pass the impugned order of dismissal, the said order had no existence in the eye of law and, therefore, respondent no. 1 should be deemed to be in service and be reinstated. Aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court the Bank has filed this appeal. 3. 1 should be deemed to be in service and be reinstated. Aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court the Bank has filed this appeal. 3. We are in agreement with the conclusion to which the High court has come, though for somewhat different reasons which are as follows :-The Board of Directors of the appellant/bank was superseded by the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies by an order dated july 25,1967 and its powers were vested in the Madhya Pradesh state Co-operative Bank, Jabalpur, which is an Apex Bank, as "officer -in -charge" of the superseded Bank. By Resolution No. 23, dated May 19,1968, the Apex Bank confirmed the action of its Chairman/vice-Chairman in deputing, amongst others S. P. Jain as the Chief Executive Officer of the superseded Bank. The apex Bank had no authority or power so to appoint S. P. Jain for two reasons: In the first place, the Apex Bank being an appointee of the Registrar, had no authority to divest itself of the power conferred upon it by the Registrar and to invest S. P. Jain with that power. The only authority which could have conferred the necessary power on S. P. Jain was the Registrar. The Registrar did not confer that power upon S. P. Jain under Section 53 (4)of the Act. 4. In the result, this appeal is dismissed with costs. " the Division Bench of this Court in Govind Aryas case (supra) had the occasion to consider similar question. This Court in Para 24 held :-"24. As stated above the Prabhari Adhikari, namely respondent no. 3 acts under the control of the Registrar and in such matters like the present one, in our opinion, he is not competent to issue such a notice because the question whether a particular member has been validly made as a member of the Society is not to be reopened by him because he has to exercise all or any of the functions of the Committee or of any officer of the Society. Therefore, the present action of the respondent No. 3 can not be said to be such which he was required to take in the interest of the Society. " ( 10. Therefore, the present action of the respondent No. 3 can not be said to be such which he was required to take in the interest of the Society. " ( 10. ) IN view of settled position by Apex Court and Division Bench of this Court, it is apparent that the Officer -in -charge has limited powers and was not having powers to retire compulsorily the employees of the Bank. If he was having cogent reasons to retire the employees compulsorily, then he was required to seek approval of the Registrar in this regard, because the Registrar has delegated his powers to the Officer -in -charge under sub-section (8) (ii) of section 49 of the Act. He being a delegate of the Registrar can not act as registrar. In the circumstances, he was required to take approval of the Registrar before retiring compulsorily the respondents. In this regard without seeking approval from Registrar, action of the petitioners retiring compulsorily the respondents, was not valid. ( 11. ) SO far as the judgment of Apex Court in Bishwanath Prasad singh (supra), the Apex Court held that such an order may be subject to judicial review on very limited grounds such as the order being malafide, based on no material or on collateral grounds or having been passed by an authority not competent to do so. The ratio of Bishwanath Prasad Singhs case (supra) will apply in the present case also. ( 12. ) IN the present case, the Officer -in -charge who was appointed by the Registrar under sub-section (8) (ii) of Section 49 was for a limited purpose. He was delegated powers by Registrar and was bound to take approval from the Registrar. In the circumstances, the Joint Registrar by the impugned order has rightly held that, without approval from the Registrar the Officer -in -charge can not retire an employee compulsorily. The order passed by Joint Registrar, annexure P-l is affirmed with different reasoning and accordingly the order retiring respondents compulsorily is hereby quashed. However, the petitioners if choose so, and wants to retire respondents compulsorily, then then may do so in accordance with law, after getting the approval of Registrar, if still the order passed under sub-section (8) (ii) of Section 49 of the Act, is continuing. ( 13. ) WITH the aforesaid, these petitions are dismissed, with no order as to costs. Writ Petitions dismissed.