Piyush Kumar Singh vs State Of Chhattisgarh

The petitioner herein calls in question legality, validity and correctness of the order dated 29.11.2011 (Annexure PÂ1) by which the State

Government has setÂaside the order of the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies dated 26.2.2011 and order of the Additional Registrar, Cooperative

Societies dated 10.8.2011.

Mr.Vinod Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the State Government has not decided legality, validity and

correctness of the orders passed by two authorities and merely because respondent No.5 has been reinstated by the competent authority on 30.1.2006

and since it could not have been challenged, the order has become final and therefore, held the petitioner's removal was justified and allowed the

revision setting aside the orders dated 26.2.2011 and 10.8.2011, which is wholly unsustainable and bad in law.

On the other hand, Mr.Avinash Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for respondents No.1 and 4, would support the impugned order.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost

circumspection.

The petitioner was appointed by Samiti on 1.12.2005 on the post of Salesman, which was approved by the Samiti in its meeting dated 13.5.2008 and

duly approved by the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies on 30.6.2009 and thereafter, the petitioner was removed from his post on 6.10.2009

without affording him opportunity of hearing and opportunity to defend himself, which led to raising of dispute under Section 55 of the Chhattisgarh

CoÂoperative Societies Act, 1960 before the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies. The Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, JanjgirÂChampa

by order dated 6.9.2010 (Annexure PÂ3) declined to entertain the dispute and rejected the same, against which, he preferred appeal before the Joint

Registrar, Cooperative Societies. The Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies by order dated 26.2.2011 (Anneuxre PÂ4) entertained the appeal and

setÂ​ aside the order of removal of the petitioner and directed him to be reinstated, against which, again the Society/ respondent No.2 preferred second

appeal before the Additional Registrar, Cooperative Societies. The Additional Registrar, Cooperative Societies by order dated 10.8.2011 (Annexure

PÂ5) dismissed the same affirming the order of the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies. Respondent No.2 thereafter preferred revision before the

State Government. The State Government by its impugned order dated 29.11.2011 (Annexure PÂ1) entertained the revision and setÂaside the order

of the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies dated 26.2.2011 and order of the Additional Registrar, Cooperative Societies dated 10.8.2011 and

restored the order of the Deputy Registrar dated 6.9.2010 dismissing the claim of the petitioner.

A careful perusal of the impugned order would show that the State Government did not deal with the contention of respondent No.2 on merits as to

whether removal of the petitioner is in accordance with the Rules or not and whether he has been given a reasonable opportunity of hearing before

terminating his services, but only dealt with the contention that since respondent No.5 has been reinstated by order dated 30.1.2006 (Annexure PÂ6),

to which respondent No.2 has not challenged, therefore, this order has become final and therefore, removal of the petitioner is in accordance with law.

Once two authorities have already held that the petitioner's removal is in violation of the principles of natural justice and he has not afforded an

opportunity of hearing, the State Government ought to have dealt with the contention of respondent No.2 on its own merit and revision could not have

been allowed on the ground that respondent No.5 has already been reinstated, therefore, removal of the petitioner is in accordance with.

In that view of the matter, the impugned order dated 29.11.2011 (Annexure PÂ​1) passed by the State Government is hereby setÂ​aside.

The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. No order as to cost(s).