Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 2001 (ALL)

Azizur Rahaman v. District Cooperative Bank Ltd.

2024-09-04

AJIT KUMAR

body2024
JUDGMENT : AJIT KUMAR, J. 1. Heard Sri Jeetendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Yashwant Singh, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 4. 2. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, petitioner has assailed the order passed by the Secretary of the District Cooperative Bank Limited, Kanpur dated 01.06.2024 whereby he has been dismissed from the employment of the Bank through a resolution adopted by the Committee, dated 18.09.2023. 3. A preliminary objection has been raised by Sri Yashwant Singh, learned counsel for the respondent to the effect that the petitioner has efficacious remedy to challenge the resolution of the Committee of Management which has resulted in the order dated 01.06.2024 before the Registrar, Cooperative Societies under Section 128 of the Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1965. He has also placed reliance upon a judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 17.10.2014 in the matter of Ranvijay Singh Bhadauria v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others passed in Writ (A) No. 39967 of 2008 whereunder the Court had declined to entertain the petition against the order of dismissal from the service on the ground that the Registrar, Cooperative Societies has requisite residuary and supervisory powers to deal with the resolution adopted by the Committee of Management and annul the same. 4. Meeting the arguments, Sri Jeetendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed before the Court relevant provisions as contained under the Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Societies Employees Service Regulations, 1975, according to which against the order of dismissal no forum of appeal has been provided. Sri Singh, learned counsel has also placed before the Court the provisions as contained under Section 84 which provide for penalties and one of them is Clause (iv) dismissal from service whereas other penalties are of different nature and vide Regulation 86 of the Regulations the penalties imposed under Clause (a) to (d) of Clause (i) of Regulation 84 only have been made appealable before the authority as mentioned in Appendix-D. The penalties as contained under Clause (e) and (g) sub-clause (i) of Clause 84 only the prior permission concurrence of the Institutional Service Board is required. He further argues that since there is no forum of appeal therefore this Court may entertain this petition. 5. He further argues that since there is no forum of appeal therefore this Court may entertain this petition. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the records and particularly after going through the relevant provisions as contained under Section 128 of Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1965, I find that the Registrar has been vested with all the residuary powers to deal with the resolutions adopted by the Committee of Management being of whatever nature and has power to annul such resolution. The relevant provision under Section 128 of the Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 are reproduced hereunder: “128. Registrar's power to annul resolution of a co-operative society or cancel order passed by an officer of a co-operative society in certain cases: The Registrar may: (i) annul any resolution passed by the Committee of Management, or the general body of any co-operative society. (ii) cancel any order passed by an officer of a co-operative society. If he is of the opinion that the resolution or the order, as the case may be, is not covered by the objects of the society, or is in contravention of the provisions of this Act, the rules or the bye-laws of the society, whereupon every such resolution or order shall become void and inoperative and be deleted from the records of the society.......” 6. I further notice that a concurrent Bench of this Court in the matter of Ranvijay Singh Bhadauria (Supra) has already followed order and judgment of this Court of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nand Kishor v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, 2008 (26) LCD 428 to hold that the power vested with Registrar, Cooperative Societies under Section 128 is wide enough to include all such resolutions which have even resulted in dismissal of employee of the Co-operative Societies vide paragraph nos. 4 and 5 of the judgment it has been held thus: “4. For appreciating the contentions raised on behalf of the respondents it is worthwhile to refer to Section 122 of the Act 1965 which confers a power upon the State Government to constitute an Authority for regulating the Service condition of the employees of the Cooperative Societies. The Authority in turn has been conferred powers to frame regulations for the purpose. For appreciating the contentions raised on behalf of the respondents it is worthwhile to refer to Section 122 of the Act 1965 which confers a power upon the State Government to constitute an Authority for regulating the Service condition of the employees of the Cooperative Societies. The Authority in turn has been conferred powers to frame regulations for the purpose. In exercise of powers under Section 122 State Government as constituted Cooperative Societies Service Institutions Board at Lucknow. This Board has framed the Regulation of 1975. Under the Regulation 1986 an appeal to the Chairman against an order of the Managing Director has been provided for. It is in exercise of this power that the Chairman has decided the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of Managing Director imposing the punishment of recovery of the loss caused. It is thus apparent that the source of power of the Chairman under the Regulations flows from this provisions under Section 122 of the Cooperative Societies Act. Section 128 of the Cooperative Societies Act contemplates that all orders passed by the officers of Cooperative Societies can be cancelled in the cases provided for under the said Section itself. 5. The power conferred under Section 128 is therefore available to an employee who is aggrieved by order of the Chairman passed in appeal preferred by him under the Regulations. The power conferred upon the Registrar under Section 128 of the Act, i.e. the parent legislation is not diluted in any manner by the regulations framed by the Institutional Board which are in the nature of subordinate legislation as reference may also be had to the definition of “Officer” as contained in Section 20 of the Cooperative Societies Act which categorically refers to the Chairman as an officer of the Cooperative Societies. Therefore, the application filed by the petitioner under Section 128 of the Act 1965 was legally maintainable. The order of Additional Registrar dated 12.6.2007 holding otherwise is legally not justified.” 7. In such above view of the matter, therefore, I do not see any justification to take a different view from what has already been taken by a coordinate Bench of this Court in the aforesaid case. Hence the preliminary objection raised by Sri Yashwant Singh, learned counsel for the respondent is upheld. 8. The law is well settled that no one can be left remediless. Hence the preliminary objection raised by Sri Yashwant Singh, learned counsel for the respondent is upheld. 8. The law is well settled that no one can be left remediless. The highest authority under an enactment if is vested with the supervisory and superintending power or residuary power, which is not traceable in any other provision of the Act then such power should be permitted to be exercised to look into and decide the matter as a final authority on facts and I find it to be necessary for arresting any miscarriage of justice. 9. Hence, I decline to entertain the petition at this stage. However, it is left open for the petitioner to prefer an appeal/representation before the Registrar, Cooperative Societies taking aid to Section 128 of the Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 and in the event any such representation/appeal is filed within a period of four weeks from today, the same shall be dealt with and disposed of by Registrar, Cooperative Societies within a further period of two months. 10. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this petition stands disposed of.