Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 310 (MP)

Ajay Asati v. State of M. P.

2024-03-21

SANJAY DWIVEDI

body2024
ORDER 1. The petitioner, by the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is challenging the validity of order dated 5.3.2024 (Annexure-P/7) passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Shahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Chhatarpur (respondent No.3), whereby he has been placed under suspension. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was holding the post of Branch Manager at Bijawar Branch. It is submitted that since the officer who has passed the impugned order is not competent to place the petitioner under suspension, therefore, the present petition is maintainable before this Court. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon an order passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.5055 of 2024 [Jalam Singh v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others] on 18.3.2024. 3. Indisputably, the petitioner is an employee of cooperative bank which is a society registered under the provisions of M.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (in short the 'Act, 1960'). That apart, it is a dispute between employee and employer, in which respondent No.3 has placed the petitioner under suspension. Provision of section 55 of the Act, 1960 very specifically provides that if a dispute relating to service conditions of an employee working in a cooperative society is raised, then that can be raised before the Registrar only. Section 55 of the Act, 1960 is relevant, which reads as under:- '[55. Registrar's power to determine conditions of employment in societies.-(1) The Registrar may, from time to time, frame rules governing the terms and conditions of employment in a society or class of societies and the society or class of societies to which such terms and conditions of employment are applicable shall comply with the order that may be issued by the Registrar in this behalf: Provided that in the case of co-operative credit structure, the Registrar may frame rules governing the terms and conditions of employment on the basis of the guidelines specified by the National Bank. [(2) Where a dispute, including a dispute regarding terms of employment working conditions and disciplinary action taken by a society, arises between a society and its employees, the Registrar or any officer appointed by him not below the rank of Assistant Registrar shall decide the dispute and his decision shall be binding on the society and its employees: Provided that the Registrar or the officer referred to above shall not entertain the dispute unless presented to him within thirty days from the date of order sought to be impugned: Provided further that in computing the period of limitation under the foregoing proviso, the time requisite for obtaining copy of the order shall be excluded:] [Provided also that the Registrar or the officer referred to above may admit dispute after the expiry of thirty days, if the applicant satisfy the Registrar or officer referred to above that he had sufficient cause for not referring the dispute within the stipulated time.]' From the language used in sub-section (2) of section 55 of the Act, 1960, it is clear that the Registrar or any Officer appointed by him, not below the rank of Assistant Registrar shall decide the dispute and his decision shall be binding on the Society and its employees. 4. This Court in Writ Petition No.3838 of 2024 [Arvind Kumar Vyas v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others] vide order dated 26.2.2024 has taken the view that the petition relating to service conditions of an employee of co-operative society cannot be entertained by the Court exercising the jurisdiction provided under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the said case, the Court has observed as under:- 3.Counsel for the petitioner submits that the challenge is made solely on the ground that the Chief Executive Officer, District Co-operative Central Bank, Maryadit, Chhattarpur is not the competent authority to take action against the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner is in-charge of primary Society and the Chief Executive Officer of District Co-operative Central Bank is a secondary Society and as such, both the Societies have different identities and action against the petitioner cannot be taken by the Chief Executive Officer of District Co-operative Central Bank, Maryadit, Chhattarpur. 4. He submits that the petitioner is in-charge of primary Society and the Chief Executive Officer of District Co-operative Central Bank is a secondary Society and as such, both the Societies have different identities and action against the petitioner cannot be taken by the Chief Executive Officer of District Co-operative Central Bank, Maryadit, Chhattarpur. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has raised an objection about maintainability of the petition saying that petition is not maintainable in view of Section 55 of the Madhya Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (for short, 'Act of 1960'). 5. I find substance in the submission made by counsel for the respondents for the reason that Section 55 of the Act of 1960 deals with the power of Registrar to determine conditions of employment in Societies and it is the Registrar which can determine whether the Chief Executive Officer of District Co-operative Central Bank, Maryadit, Chhattarpur is competent to take any action against the petitioner who is also an employee of the Society or not. For the purpose of convenience, it is apt to quote Section 55 of the Act of 1960, which reads as under:- ''[55. Registrar's power to determine conditions of employment in societies.- (1) The Registrar may, from time to time, frame rules governing the terms and conditions of employment in a society or class of societies and the society or class of societies to which such terms and conditions of employment are applicable shall comply with the order that may be issued by the Registrar in this behalf: Provided that in the case of co-operative credit structure, the Registrar may frame rules governing the terms and conditions of employment on the basis of the guidelines specified by the National Bank. [(2) Where a dispute, including a dispute regarding terms of employment working conditions and disciplinary action taken by a society, arises between a society and its employees, the Registrar or any officer appointed by him not below the rank of Assistant Registrar shall decide the dispute and his decision shall be binding on the society and its employees: Provided that the Registrar or the officer referred to above shall not entertain the dispute unless presented to him within thirty days from the date of order sought to be impugned: Provided further that in computing the period of limitation under the foregoing proviso, the time requisite for obtaining copy of the order shall be excluded:] [Provided also that the Registrar or the officer referred to above may admit dispute after the expiry of thirty days, if the applicant satisfy the Registrar or officer referred to above that he had sufficient cause for not referring the dispute within the stipulated time.]' 6. From the language used in sub-section (2) of section 55 of the Act of 1960, it is clear that the Registrar or any Officer appointed by him, not below the rank of Assistant Registrar shall decide the dispute and his decision shall be binding on the Society and its employees. Indisputably, petitioner is an employee of the Society and the order which has been passed by the Chief Executive Officer of District Co-operative Central Bank, Maryadit, Chhattarpur is also a Co-operative Society. The status of the Society, as per the petitioner, is altogether different and both the Societies have their independent identities and if the authority which has passed the impugned order is not competent to control the service conditions of petitioner, then to initiate any disciplinary action, the Registrar can decide the said dispute by giving specific finding thereon. 7. When there is a specific provision in the Act of 1960 itself providing various forums for the petitioner being the member of the Cooperative Society, I do not find that petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be entertained that too in respect of the dispute which touches the service conditions of petitioner who is an employee of the Co-operative Society. However, counsel for the respondents has shown the powers and duties assigned to the Chief Executive Officer and according to it, the Chief Executive Officer can take appropriate action under the provisions of service rules of the Society, meaning thereby, the Chief Executive Officer can exercise the power as per service rules of the Society and as such, in my opinion, Chief Executive Officer can also issue the order impugned, but it is for the Registrar to see whether this authority is competent enough to pass specific order in this regard or not. Thus, the petitioner should approach the Registrar, Cooperative Societies and if the same is done, the said authority shall look into the matter and examine as to whether the Chief Executive Officer of District Co-operative Central Bank, Maryadit, Chhattarpur is competent enough to take action against the petitioner who is an Incharge, Samiti Prabandhak of the Society and then pass an appropriate order in that regard but this petition directly before this Court is not maintainable and as such, it is hereby dismissed.' 5. So far as the case of Jalam Singh (supra) is concerned, in the said case, the counsel who appeared in the case of Arvind Kumar Vyas (supra), was same, but he did not point out the co-ordinate Bench about the view already taken by this Court dismissing the petition of Arvind Kumar Vyas (supra) saying that it is not maintainable before this Court. The conduct of the counsel is highly deprecated and virtually it is a misconduct on this part. Under such circumstances, the case of Jalam Singh (supra) is neither applicable in the present case nor having any binding effect upon this Court as the said order is per incuriam. Not only the Advocate for the petitioner, but the Advocate, who appeared on behalf of the respondent/State, did not apprise the Court about the existing legal position. Had it been a case in which the co-ordinate Bench was apprised about the decision already taken by this Court in the case of Arvind Kumar Vyas (supra), then the result of the case of Jalam Singh (supra) would have been different. 6. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed as not maintainable. 7. Had it been a case in which the co-ordinate Bench was apprised about the decision already taken by this Court in the case of Arvind Kumar Vyas (supra), then the result of the case of Jalam Singh (supra) would have been different. 6. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed as not maintainable. 7. However, the petitioner is at liberty to raise his dispute before the Registrar and on the same being done, the Registrar within a period of 45 days from the date of raising such dispute by the petitioner, shall decide the same in accordance with law giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned.