Bharat S/o Rajaram vs State of Madhya Pradesh

By way of present writ petition, the petitioner who is posted

as Assistant Accountant at the respondent No.2-Bank has

challenged the order dated 04.08.2016 passed by the

respondent No.3/Chief Executive Officer, District Central

Cooperative Bank, Chhattarpur, whereby the petitioner''s

services have been suspended.

Facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner is an employee of the District Central Cooperative Bank,

Chhattarpur and he was posted as Assistant Accountant. The

aforesaid bank is under suppression and is under the charge

of the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Chhattarpur,

which is also appointed as the Administrator in absence of the

Board. The aforesaid Administrator holding the temporary

charge of the society transferred the services of the petitioner

vide order dated 01.01.2016 and being aggrieved of the same,

the petitioner preferred WP No.605/2016 before this Court,

which was disposed of vide order dated 18.10.2016 with a

direction to the Registrar, Cooperative Bank to decide the

petitioner''s representation by a speaking order after

affording him an opportunity of hearing and the Chief

Executive Officer, District Cooperative Bank, Chhattarpur

within a period of one month from the date of receipt of such

a representation.

The contention of the leaned counsel for the petitioner is

that the respondent No.3 has again committed a grave error

in passing the impugned order dated 4.8.2016 whereby the

petitioner''s services have been suspended despite the fact

that the respondent No.3 has no jurisdiction to suspend him.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Bank in question is under the temporary charge of the

Administrator, and therefore the respondent No.3 has no

jurisdiction to pass the suspension order against the

petitioner. Therefore, it is prayed that the impugned order

may be set aside.

In support of his argument, learned counsel for the

petitioner has relied upon a judgment of the Division Bench of

this Court in the case of Zila Sahakari Aur Gramin Vikas

Bank Mydt. And others v. Phool Singh Tandeshwar and

another, 2004 RN 47 and in the case of Ashok Kumar

Kelapure v. Jila Sahakari Krishi and Gramin Vikas

Bank, Bhopal and another, 2009 RN 381. In both the

cases this Court has held that in a case of a decision relating

to compulsory retirement of employees of a Cooperative

Society, which is under supersession, the Administrator

cannot take a policy decision and is required to take

permission from the Registrar under Section 53(4) of the M.P.

Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (for brevity ??? Societies

Act ???). Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied

upon the order dated 18.1.2016 passed in WP No.605/2016 in

the case of the petitioner only and the order dated 1.2.2016

passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in WP No.14274/2015.

It is further contended by the learned counsel for the

petitioner that in case if this Court comes to a conclusion that

the respondent No.3 was not competent to pass an order, in

that case also a regular Chief Executive Officer is appointed

in the Bank, and hence an appropriate direction may be

issued to him to pass proper order.

In the present case, the State has not filed any reply to the

writ petition, whereas the respondent No.3 has filed its return

to submit that serious financial irregularities were found

against the petitioner, which have also been admitted by the

petitioner. The contention of the petitioner that the

respondent No.3 has no jurisdiction to pass the impugned

order has no basis at all for the reason that the services of the

petitioner are governed by Jila Sahakati Kendriya Bankon Ke

Sevayukton Ke (Niyojan, Nibandhan Tatha Karyastithi

Sevaniyam, Anusuchi, Aacharan Niyam Avam Manav

Sansadhan Niti, and according to Clause 49.1 of the same,

CEO is competent authority to take action against the

Assistant Manager in which category the petitioner falls.

Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 has further

submitted that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 55(2) of the Societies Act against the

impugned order.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record, this Court is of the considered opinion

that the aforesaid judgments rendered in the case of Phool

Singh Tandeshwar (supra) and in the case of Ashok

Kumar Kelapure (supra) are of no help to the petitioner for

the reason that the said judgments do not lay down any

blanket proposition that in all the cases where a society is

under superssession and an Administrator is appointed, he

cannot take any decision regarding the society without prior

first taking a permission from the Registrar. So far as the

order dated 1.2.2016 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this

Court in WP No.14274/2015 is concerned, the facts of the

said case are totally distinguishable, therefore, the same is

not applicable in the present case. Thus, in the considered

opinion of this Court in a case where an employee of the

Cooperative Society is found to be involved in a case of

embezzlement and allegation of serious financial

irregularities are levelled against him, it would be within the

power of Administrator to pass an order of suspension in the

interest of society, and as such the impugned order dated 4.8.2016 (Annexure P-4) passed by the respondent No.3/Chief

Executive Officer cannot be said to be illegal. The reliance

placed by the petitioner on the order dated 18.1.2016 passed

in WP No.605/2016 of the same petitioner is also misplaced

for the reason that in the aforesaid decision the petitioner

was transferred from one place to another and this Court

after recording the concession of the counsel for the

respondents had passed the order.

In the considered opinion of this Court there has to be a

distinction between a policy matter and regular matter, while

compulsory retirement or transfer can be said to be the policy

matters, whereas the suspension of a delinquent employee

cannot be said to be a policy matter for the reason that an

employee who is involved in embezzlement does not require

any policy to be kept under suspension and the Administrator

is required to act swiftly to save the interest of the society.

The respondent has also relied upon the order of this Court

in the case of General Manager, Sagar Dugdh Sangh

Sahakari Marayadit, Siroja Vs. Mustaque, reported in

2006(1) MPLJ 461, wherein this Court had dismissed the

writ petition on the ground of availability of alternative

remedy.

In the result, the petition filed by the petitioner fails and

is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Since this Court

has ruled on the jurisdiction of the CEO/

Dy.Registrar/Administrator to exercise his powers suspending

an employee, and not on the validity of the said order on

merits, the petitioner is at liberty to avail the alternative

remedy available under the Cooperative Societies Act .