Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1508 (RAJ)

Mahendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2019-05-15

ARUN BHANSALI

body2019
JUDGMENT : ARUN BHANSALI, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the notice dated 08.04.2019 (Annex.-6) and order dated 22/23.04.2019 (Annex.-7), whereby the meeting of the District Advisory Committee was convened and the petitioner was placed under suspension respectively. 2. The petitioner was serving as Manager, Bandhara Gram Seva Sahakari Samiti and was holding additional charge of Jhankali Gram Seva Sahakari Samiti Ltd. Jhankali, Barmer (the Samiti), when an FIR (Annex.-2) came to be lodged against the petitioner and one Bhanwar Dan, Chairman of the Samiti by the respondent No. 3-Bank. Whereafter, it appears that the Bank (respondent No. 3) under provisions of Rule 38(c)(3)(5) of the Primary Agriculture Loan Cooperative Societies/Major Agriculture Multipurpose Cooperative Societies Employees Selection, Appointment and Service Conditions, 2008 (the Service Conditions, 2008), required the Bandhara Samiti to suspend the petitioner by order dated 18.03.2019. However, when the suspension did not take place, by communication/notice dated 08.04.2019 (Annex.-6), a meeting of the District Advisory Committee was convened on 15.04.2019, which meeting was postponed to 22.04.2019 and by order dated 22/23.04.2019 (Annex.-7), the petitioner was suspended. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in terms of provisions of Rule 38(c)(3)(5) of the Service Conditions, 2008, the suspension order could only be made under the signatures of the Chairman of the Samiti and as the order of suspension (Annex.-7) has been issued under the signatures of the Secretary of the District Advisory Committee, the order impugned suspending the petitioner is wholly without jurisdiction, which deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material available on record. 5. It is not in dispute that a communication dated 18.03.2019 was sent by the Bank to the respondent No. 5-Bandhara Samiti seeking suspension of the petitioner, however when suspension did not take place, the meeting of the District Advisory Committee was scheduled on 15.04.2019, which was postponed to 22.04.2019, whereafter the order (Annex.-7) was passed suspending the petitioner. 6. 5. It is not in dispute that a communication dated 18.03.2019 was sent by the Bank to the respondent No. 5-Bandhara Samiti seeking suspension of the petitioner, however when suspension did not take place, the meeting of the District Advisory Committee was scheduled on 15.04.2019, which was postponed to 22.04.2019, whereafter the order (Annex.-7) was passed suspending the petitioner. 6. Provisions of Rule 39(1) of the Service Conditions, 2008 reads as under:- ^^39-1 fonkrk cSad dk fo'ks"kkf/kdkj % ifjHkkf"kr fo'ks"k ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa cSad ds vf/k'kk"kh vf/kdkjh dks ;g vf/kdkj gksxk fd og lacaf/kr ds v/;{k dks fyf[kr esa mDr O;oLFkkid@lgk;d O;oLFkkid }kjk dh xbZ vuq'kklughurk dk ÁFken`"V;k fooj.k fHktokdj mldks fuyEcu djus ds funsZ'k ns ldsxkA ;fn ÁcU/kdkfj.kh }kjk 15 fnol dh vof/k esa mfpr dne ugha mBk;s tkrs gSa rFkk larks"ktud mRrj ÁkIr ugha gksrk gS rks lnL; lfpo] ftyk Lrjh; ijke'kZnk=h o tkap lfefr vius Lrj ij lacaf/kr vkjksih dks fuyfEcr dj oSdfYid O;oLFkk dj ldrk gS vFkok vius fdlh deZpkjh@vf/kdkjh dks vkfQlj vku Lis'ky M~;wVh ds :i esa fdlh lhfer le; ds fy, tks 6 ekg ls vf/kd u gks] fu;ksftr dj ldsxk rFkk bldh lwpuk lfefr dks fHktok;sxk ,oa lacaf/kr ds fo:) vuq'kklukRed dk;Zokgh gsrq iwjk Ádj.k ftyk Lrjh; ijke'kZnk=h o tkap lfefr dks fHktok;sxkA** (Emphasis supplied) 7. A perusal of the above provision indicates that if steps are not taken within a period of 15 days of the Bank requiring the suspension of the Manager, the Secretary of the District Advisory Committee can suspend the Manager and make alternative arrangements. 8. The provisions in the Service Conditions, 2008 are very clear and in compliance thereof the Secretary of the District Advisory Committee has issued the order (Annex.-7) suspending the petitioner on existence of the conditions indicated in the Rules and, therefore, no exception can be taken to the order (Annex.-7) passed by the Secretary of the Committee/claim that the same is without jurisdiction. 9. No other point was argued before this Court. 10. In view of the above fact situation, no case for interference is made out, the writ petition is dismissed.