Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 506 (MP)

Ram Vishal Pateriya v. State of M. P.

2024-07-16

VIVEK JAIN

body2024
ORDER 1. The present petition has been filed challenging the suspension order Annexure P/9 dated 13.6.2024, alleged to be issued under instructions of the Registrar, Cooperative societies of Madhya Pradesh, vide Annexure P-8 dated 12.6.2024. The petitioner is working on the substantive post of Manager (Accounts), in District Central Cooperative Bank, Chhatarpur (hereinafter referred to as “Bank”). 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order Annxure P/9 has been passed in colourable exercise of powers because the order though is signed by the CEO of the Bank under authority of the Staff SubCommittee, but from perusal of the letter Annexure P-8 it is evident that the Registrar, Cooperative Societies has issued instructions for the same and thus, the order has been issued under instructions and dictate of a third authority. 3. The learned counsel further submitted that the matter alleged against the petitioner relates to irregularities in appointment of Society Managers, however, the said ground is not made out for the reason that the Society Managers who were recruited in the process in which irregularity is alleged, have already been granted stay by this Court in various petitions, including WP No.16704/2024. It was further contended that the matter was enquired twice over, once by the Joint Registrar vide Annexure P/3 dated 24.2.2023 and again by the Deputy Registrar vide Annexure P/4 dated 29.5.2023. On both the occasions, no irregularities were found by the concerned authority. However, thereafter again vide Annexure P/5, fresh enquiry was ordered by the Registrar and this report seems to be against the petitioner on basis of which he has been suspended. Thus, repeated reports were called until the petitioner was held to be at fault and an excuse to take action against the petitioner was being created by these repeated enquiries. 4. Per contra, it was argued by learned counsel for the caveator that all these enquiries are merely preliminary enquiries. Now a disciplinary action against the petitioner is being contemplated and he has been suspended in such contemplation and a regular departmental enquiry would ensue against the petitioner. Suspension does not amount to punishment. 4. Per contra, it was argued by learned counsel for the caveator that all these enquiries are merely preliminary enquiries. Now a disciplinary action against the petitioner is being contemplated and he has been suspended in such contemplation and a regular departmental enquiry would ensue against the petitioner. Suspension does not amount to punishment. Various irregularities have been found in the recruitment of Society Managers and therefore, the petitioner has been placed under suspension under orders of the Staff Sub-Committee and the Registrar had merely asked the Bank to take action as per enquiry, and did not direct the Bank to suspend the petitioner. 5. Heard. 6. The contention that in repeated enquiries, nothing was found against the petitioner, is taken up first. It is evident that the issues raised by the petitioner in this regard are factual, because in both the preliminary enquiry reports Annexures No.P/3 and P/4, different aspects have been considered and it is not clear that subsequently on which aspect fault has been found in the matter in the subsequent enquiry got carried out in the year 2024. It is important to note here that the enquiry reports are prior to issuance of the appointment orders that seem to be issued in July 2023. The subsequent enquiry report of year 2024 is not placed on record by the petitioner. Now what was the exact irregularity found in the subsequent enquiry and whether it was already taken note in the earlier enquiries, cannot be commented upon at this stage, otherwise it may prejudice the petitioner or the employer-Bank in the regular departmental enquiry. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner fairly admitted that the suspension order has been issued as per approval of the Staff Sub-Committee which is the competent authority being Bank Management in terms of clause 2.8 of the service regulations and further that the Bank Management is the competent authority to suspend the petitioner in terms of clause 52.1.1 of the service regulations and is also the disciplinary authority, and there is no quarrel as to that. However, the order is bad in law being passed at instructions and dictate of the Registrar. Thus, it is the order of the Registrar and if the petitioner avails the remedy under section 55(2) of the M.P. Cooperative Societies Act 1960, then the same would go before the Registrar or its delegate, which is not efficacious. 8. However, the order is bad in law being passed at instructions and dictate of the Registrar. Thus, it is the order of the Registrar and if the petitioner avails the remedy under section 55(2) of the M.P. Cooperative Societies Act 1960, then the same would go before the Registrar or its delegate, which is not efficacious. 8. A bare perusal of the letters Annexures P/7 and P/8 makes it evident that though the Registrar has not ordered suspension, but he has written that certain employees including the present petitioner have been found to be at fault in the matter, hence, action be taken against them as per rules. Thus, it is evident that the Registrar is prima facie satisfied against the petitioner and relegating the petitioner to remedy under section 55 (2) to the Registrar or his delegate does not seem proper. 9. A perusal of the letters Annexures P/8 and P/9 makes it evident that the Registrar has merely asked the society to take appropriate decision from its end. As per section 53 of M.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 in case of supersession of Board of Director, the administrator has to remain under the control of the Registrar and the Registrar is having power to give instruction to the administrator from time to time. Thus, the suspension order cannot be quashed on mere ground that it appears to be issued under dictate of the Registrar. The relevant provisions are as under:- "53(3) The administrator 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 Board of Directors or of any officer of the society and to take all such actions, as may be required in the interest of the society. (5) The Administrator so appointed shall manage the affairs of the society under the control and guidance of the Registrar and shall arrange the conduct of election under the direction of the Authority." 10. The Administrator has to work under the control of the Registrar and the Registrar is having powers to issue instructions to the Administrator. (5) The Administrator so appointed shall manage the affairs of the society under the control and guidance of the Registrar and shall arrange the conduct of election under the direction of the Authority." 10. The Administrator has to work under the control of the Registrar and the Registrar is having powers to issue instructions to the Administrator. Thus, even if the impugned order is deemed to be passed at the instance of the Registrar, then also in terms of section 53(3), the Registrar of the society is having powers to issue instructions to and exercise control over the Administrator in absence of the elected Board. The Bank is a Cooperative Society and it is undisputed that presently the Collector of the District is the Administrator of the Bank. 11. In case the order is passed under the directions of the Registrar and the order as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner is deemed to be passed by Registrar himself, even then the petitioner has a remedy under section 78 of M.P. Cooperative Societies Act 1960 to file an appeal before the Registrar against the order of the Deputy Registrar. The relevant section 78 as under:- "78. Appeals before the Registrar and Tribunal.- (1) Save where it has been otherwise provided, an appeal shall lie from every original order under this Act or the rules made there under:- (a) if such order is passed by any officer subordinate to Registrar, other than Additional Registrar or Joint Registrar, whether or not the Officer passing the order is invested with the powers of the Registrar, to the Registrar; (b) if such order is passed by the Registrar, Additional Registrar or a Joint Registrar, to the Tribunal." 12. Thus, even if the order Annexure P/9 is passed on the instructions of the Registrar in terms of the section 53(3) & (5) of the Act of 1960 even then the petitioner has a remedy of appeal before the M.P. State Cooperative Tribunal. Similar was the view taken by this Court in the case of Mahesh Yadav v. Cooperative Department, reported in 2016 SCC Online MP 7321. 13. Similar was the view taken by this Court in the case of Mahesh Yadav v. Cooperative Department, reported in 2016 SCC Online MP 7321. 13. As this Court has reached to a finding that the matter requires factual scrutiny and there is availability of alternative remedy to the petitioner against the said order Annexure P/9, this Court refrains from making any comments on the merits of the case vis-a-vis the allegations against the petitioner which were argued by the respondents, lest it may prejudice the case of the rival parties in regular Departmental enquiry. So far as the appointees selected by the petitioner having been granted stay by this Court in separate petitions is concerned, it is evident from perusal of the said orders that those persons have been granted stay on the aspect that they were not put to notice before termination of their services, and on this ground only they have been granted interim relief. That will not lead to any assumption that the process adopted by the petitioner was either proper or improper. 14. Resultantly, interference is declined. The petitioner is set at liberty to prefer an appeal under section 78 of the M.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 before the Tribunal. If such an appeal is filed before the Tribunal within a period of four weeks from today, then the same shall be decided on merits without adverting to the aspect of delay and limitation. 15. With the aforesaid, this petition is disposed of.