JUDGMENT 1. - In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the termination order dated 21.07.2003 (Annexure-10) issued by.the respondent and No. 3 and further prayed that respondents may be directed to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits. 2. As per facts of the case, the petitioner was permanent employee of Rawla Kriay Vikriay Sahakari Samiti Ltd. Rawla (hereinafter referred to as the "Samiti" only) and his services were terminated vide order dated 21.07.2003 while publishing the order in daily newspaper. The grievance of the petitioner is that his termination is in violation of the principles of natural justice because the order impugned has been passed without holding any enquiry or without providing any opportunity of hearing upon the allegations against the petitioner for will full absent from duty. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the-petitioner was always ready to join his duties but he was not allowed to join his services deliberately by the respondents. 4. The petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Salesman on 03.03.1980 on monthly salary of Rs. 565/- but unfortunately his services were dispensed with in the year 1981 without complying with Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The petitioner raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Commissioner and subsequently after failure of conciliation proceedings, the matter was sent to the State Government for referring the matter to the judge, Labour Court for adjudication. 5. The State Government referred the industrial dispute raised by the petitioner to the Judge, Labour Court, Bikaner where after due trial finally an award was passed vide order dated 10.02.1984 whereby the termination order was quashed and the petitioner was directed to be reinstated in service w.e.f. 24.10.1981 with back wages. The respondent society preferred a writ petition against the said award before this Court and the said writ petitioner was registered as SB Civil Writ Petition No. 2180/1984 but same was dismissed by this Hon'ble Court vide judgment dated 04.02.1986 and award passed by the Judge, Labour Court, Bikaner was affirmed. 6. After dismissal of the writ petition, the petitioner was taken back on duty and in pursuance of the above judgment and order passed by Hon'ble Court, the services of the petitioner were declared continuous and he became permanent employee of respondent society since 03.03.1980. 6. After dismissal of the writ petition, the petitioner was taken back on duty and in pursuance of the above judgment and order passed by Hon'ble Court, the services of the petitioner were declared continuous and he became permanent employee of respondent society since 03.03.1980. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that he worked as clerk and discharged his duties sincerely with dedication for near about 22 years but due to misfortune of the petitioner, he fell ill on 19.09.2002, therefore, he remained under medical treatment for eight days. During illness, the petitioner was advised to take rest for a week and after becoming medically fit, the petitioner reported on duty on 07.10.2002 with joining report along with medical certificate issued by the doctor. 7. After few days, again the petitioner fell ill and remained under medical treatment for three days from 14.10.2002 to 16.10.2002 and for the said period, the petitioner filed an application seeking medical leave on the ground of sickness but his application was not taken into consideration and he was asked by the respondent No. 3 work in the Office despite his sickness. 8. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner was suffering from high fewer, therefore, it was not possible for him to join the duties and for that reason after taking medical treatment from doctor, he remained on leave and after acquiring fitness, he immediately reported on duty on 17.10.2002 and gave joining report along with medical certificate but he was not allowed to mark his attendance in the Office by the respondent No.3. The petitioner made his all efforts for taking him on duty but respondent No. 3 did not allow the petitioner to join duties, thereafter, petitioner met respondent No.2 at Anoopgarh and requested him for intervention in the matter but respondent No. 2 shown his inability in the matter and advised the petitioner to settle the dispute with the respondent No. 3. According to the petitioner he made his all efforts to mark his attendance in the Office but due to malafide intention, the respondent No. 3 did not allow the petitioner to mark his attendance, therefore finally the petitioner filed a representation before the respondent No. 2 but he was verbally informed that "you will be intimated in writing at home." Therefore, the petitioner did not received any letter or notice from the respondent society at his home. 9. On one hand, the petitioner was not allowed to join his duties and on the other hand the respondent Society published termination order in the daily newspaper on 21.07.2003 whereby it was informed that the services of the petitioner have been terminated. The petitioner was shocked to see termination notice in the newspaper by which the respondent society shown him will full absent from duty. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner while attacking upon the order impugned dated 21.07.2003 submits that no legal process was adopted nor any enquiry was conducted as per disciplinary rules prior to passing termination order so also without providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the services of the petitioner were terminated vide impugned order dated 21.07.2003, which is totally illegal and unconstitutional action of the respondent society. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the validity of the order impugned submits that there is procedure laid down under the Sahkari Samiti Employees Service Conditions, 1991 for holding departmental enquiry for any misconduct but no enquiry whatsoever has been conducted by the respondents and abruptly in contravention of the basic principles of law, the services of the petitioner were terminated which is per se illegal. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that as per prevailing rules without holding any enquiry or investigation as provided under the Service Conditions of 1991 in Chapter VIII, no order can be passed by the respondents to terminate the services of the petitioner. Normal course of action in the matter of disciplinary proceedings begins from issuance of charge-sheet and thereafter, the service can be dispensed with after holding departmental enquiry but it has not been done in this case, therefore, the order impugned is harsh, illegal and unconstitutional, therefore, the order impugned may be quashed. 12. Normal course of action in the matter of disciplinary proceedings begins from issuance of charge-sheet and thereafter, the service can be dispensed with after holding departmental enquiry but it has not been done in this case, therefore, the order impugned is harsh, illegal and unconstitutional, therefore, the order impugned may be quashed. 12. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents first of all submitted that this writ petition is not maintainable because respondent Samiti is a Co-operative Society known as Rawla Kriya Vikriya Sahkari Samiti Ltd., which is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction because it is not State within Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that for no reason the petitioner has impleaded State of Rajasthan and Additional Registrar, Co-operative Societies Anoopgarh as party respondents to the writ petition. The State of Rajasthan as well as the Addl. Registrar, Co-operative Societies are not at all concerned with the issues which is subject matter of the present writ petition. The argument of learned counsel for the respondents is that the petitioner has impleaded the State Government and Addl. Registrar, Co-operative Societies has party in the matter just to mislead the Hon'ble Court because writ petition against Kriya Vikriya Sahkari Samiti is not maintainable and to get notices issued to the respondent State, the petitioner appears to have impleaded the State Government and Addl. Registrar, Co-operative Societies as party respondent to the proceedings, therefore, as per conduct of the petitioner, he is not entitled for any relief. Learned counsel for the respondents pointed out that the petitioner has failed to satisfy as to how the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution of India is applicable because the petitioner is employee of Society and being employee of the Society cannot claim protection under Article 311 of the Constitution of India without satisfying that he is a civil servant of the State of Rajasthan or of the Union of India. Therefore, the entire writ petition deserves to be dismissed because there is not substance in the claim made by the petitioner in the writ petition. Learned counsel for the respondents further argued that the petitioner is having efficacious alternative remedy under Section 60 of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act. Therefore, the entire writ petition deserves to be dismissed because there is not substance in the claim made by the petitioner in the writ petition. Learned counsel for the respondents further argued that the petitioner is having efficacious alternative remedy under Section 60 of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act. 2001 and further under Section 58 of the Act there is provision that dispute arising out from the touching to the Constitution, management or business of the Co-operative Societies is to be referred to the Arbitrator, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. The petitioner is also claiming protection under Section 25-F of the ID Act but the ID Act is not applicable upon the Co-operative Societies because it is not 'industry' as defined under Section 2 of the ID Act. In this view of the matter, it is submitted that there is no force in this writ petition, therefore, the same may be dismissed. 13. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents invited the attention of this Court towards following judgments of this Court with regard to maintainability of the writ petition : (1) 2004 (4) RLW 2528, (2) 2004 (2) RLW (Raj.) 1087, (3) 2002 (3) SCC 111 and (4) 2005 (4) SCC 649 and submitted that in view of the aforesaid judgments, this writ petition is not maintainable. 14. After filing reply, a detailed rejoinder was filed. 15. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the entire pleadings of the case and perused the judgments cited by learned counsel for the parties. 16. After perusing the entire pleadings of the case and judgments, I am of the opinion that there is no force in the arguments of learned counsel for the respondents that the respondent Society is not State within Article 12 of the Constitution of India because admittedly vide order dated 20.12.1993, the Registrar, Raj. Co-operative Societies framed Sahkari Upbhokta Whole-Sale Bhandars and Kraya Vikrya Sahkari Samiti's Employees Rules while exercising power under Rule 41 of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Rules, 1966. Meaning there by, for regulating the service conditions, the State Government has framed rules and regulate the service conditions of employees, which is not in dispute in this case. In the Rules so framed there is provision of disciplinary action under Chapter IV of the Rules of 1991. Meaning there by, for regulating the service conditions, the State Government has framed rules and regulate the service conditions of employees, which is not in dispute in this case. In the Rules so framed there is provision of disciplinary action under Chapter IV of the Rules of 1991. Admittedly before terminating the services of the petitioner of alleged misconduct, no disciplinary enquiry was conducted by the respondents. In reply filed by the respondent No. 3, it is specifically pleaded in para-5 that petitioner is having efficacious alternative remedy under Section 60 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 2001, Meaning thereby, the respondent themselves are accepting that provisions of Raj. Co-operative Societies Act, 2001 is applicable upon the petitioner. Para-5 of the reply filed by the respondent No.3 is as follows: "5. That without prejudice to above, the answering-respondent submits that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on the count that the petitioner is having efficacious alternative remedy under Section 60 of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 2001. Section 58 of the Act of 2001 provides the disputes which may be referred to the Arbitration. According to it, a dispute touching to the Constitution, Management or business of the Co-operative Societies arises between a Member, Past-Member or a person claiming through a Member, Past-Member or deceased-Member and the Society, Its Committee or any officer, agent or employee of the Society, such dispute is required to be referred tot he Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Rajasthan, Jaipur for decision and no Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or other proceedings in respect of such dispute. In view of it, the present writ petition is not maintainable and the petitioner is required to raise a dispute in the terms referred above before the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Rajasthan, Jaipur." 17. In view of above para-5 of the reply, it is abundantly clear that the respondents are not disputing that State Government has framed service conditions as per provisions of the Act and Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 2001 is applicable in the respondent Society. 18. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in case of Kanchan Sinha Choudhary v. State of Raj. & Ors., reported in 2008 (3) CDR 2359 (Raj.) held that writ petition against the Co-operative Society is maintainable. Para-9 of the aforesaid judgment is as follows: "9. Besides, the points raised by the respondents in their replies are not sustainable in law. 18. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in case of Kanchan Sinha Choudhary v. State of Raj. & Ors., reported in 2008 (3) CDR 2359 (Raj.) held that writ petition against the Co-operative Society is maintainable. Para-9 of the aforesaid judgment is as follows: "9. Besides, the points raised by the respondents in their replies are not sustainable in law. The objection taken by the respondents with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that respondent No.3 is not 'State' within Article 12 of the Constitution of India deserves to be rejected, for the reason that the respondent State very much has the control over respondent No. 3. The State Government gives grant to them for salary etc. Moreover, funds are received from the Government for day to day expenses and salary, as has been mentioned in para 'F' of the reply of respondent No. 3 Furthermore, the respondents have also stated in the reply that the Co-operative Department of the State Government has made Regulations of 2006 and the funds are controlled by the Fund Managing Committee which includes the representatives/nominees of the State like Principal Secretary, Co-operative Department, Registrar of the Co-operative Societies, et. Etc., as mentioned above. It is also noteworthy to mention here that the respondents had stated in their reply to the earlier writ petition that " jkT; ljdkj ds foRr foHkkx ds izfrfuf/k us deZpkfj;ksa dks fo'ks"k osru o`f) dk ykHk fn;s tkus ds vkns'k esa vkifRr mBk;h Fkh vkSj foRr foHkkx ds izfrfuf/k dk i= fnukad 12-4-1984 lapkyd eaMy dh cSBd fnukad 18-4-1984 esa fopkjkFkZ j[kk x;k FkkA " Hence, it is amply clear that the respondent State has control, including financial, over the respondent No. 3. Therefore, the objection about maintainability of the writ petition which has been filed against, inter alia, the State Government through its authorities, cannot be accepted." 19. In this view of the matter, it is held that respondent Society is 'State' within meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. 20. Similarly, other Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in case of Bhanwar Lal Acharya v. State of Raj & Ors., reported in 2009 (3) WLN 557 (Raj.): 2010 (2) CDR 1034 (Raj.) held that if any order has been passed without affording opportunity of hearing, it should be treated to be an order in violation of principles of natural justice. 20. Similarly, other Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in case of Bhanwar Lal Acharya v. State of Raj & Ors., reported in 2009 (3) WLN 557 (Raj.): 2010 (2) CDR 1034 (Raj.) held that if any order has been passed without affording opportunity of hearing, it should be treated to be an order in violation of principles of natural justice. Paras 9, 10 and 11 of the said judgment are as follows: "9. There is reference of same allegation of criminal cases against the petitioner for which petitioner was convicted by the Court and that fact cannot be disputed by the petitioner in view of the judgment dated 28.03.2003 (Annex.R/4/1) and Annex.R/4/2 (though the said conviction is sub-judice) placed on record by the respondents, but it is difficult to say that petitioner has been removed from service because of his conviction by the criminal Court and during pendency of revision petition to challenge conviction. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has already exonerated from the charge of embezzlement departmentally in Department Inquirer vide order dated 29.09.2008, copy of which has been placed on record as Annex. RJ/2. There is further allegation that petitioner remained behind bar in criminal case, but for that also, there is no reasoned order passed and it is difficult to gather that petitioner has been removed from service on this count. So far as allegation of some illegal purchases etc. are concerned, those facts are also if were separate than the charge levelled against the petitioner in the Departmental Inquiry above referred then for that admittedly, there was no Departmental Inquiry. 10. It will be further worthwhile to mention here that even by order dated 24.05.2007 the petitioner was given 3 months salary in lieu of notice and also has been given all consequential benefits. Therefore, it is not clear that whether the petitioner has been compulsorily retired from service or he has been removed from service because of holding him guilty for any misconduct. In totality of the facts of the case, the order dated 24.05.2007 has been passed without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the order is clearly stigmatic and there is a clear violation of principles of natural justice and, therefore, cannot be sustained, hence, liable to be set aside. 11. In view of the above, the writ petition of the petitioner is allowed. 11. In view of the above, the writ petition of the petitioner is allowed. The order dated 24.05.2007 is set aside. However, it is made clear that respondents will be free to take any action against the petitioner afresh in accordance with law on the basis of any of the grounds referred above or mentioned in the order dated 24.05.2007 and none of the observations made by this Court in this order be taken as if finding in favor of the petitioner or against the petitioners." 21. In reply to the writ petition, it is nowhere contended that any procedure as provided under the rules for conducting inquiry for misconduct has been followed by the respondent Society to terminate the services of the petitioner. 22. In this view of the matter, I have examined the merits of the case from which it emerges that before terminating the services of the petitioner vide impugned order dated 21.07.2003, no enquiry whatsoever has been conducted and straightaway the petitioner's services were dispensed with without providing any opportunity of hearing and holding any disciplinary enquiry. Therefore, it is obvious that the order impugned is per se illegal because it is in violation of the principles of natural justice. The controversy involved in this case is identical to the case of Bhanwar Lal Acharya (supra), therefore, while following the aforesaid judgment, it is held that order impugned dated 21.07.2003 is contrary to law. 23. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned termination order dated 21.07.2003 (Annexure-10) is hereby quashed and set aside with all consequential benefits to the petitioner. The petitioner shall be taken back in service forthwith.Petition Allowed. *******