Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Srikaranpur Kraya-Vikraya Sahakari ... vs Santokh Singh & Ors on 12 September, 2013
Author: Dinesh Maheshwari
Bench: Dinesh Maheshwari
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 6794/2003.
Srikaranpur Kraya-Vikraya Sahakari Samiti
Vs.
Santokh Singh & Ors.
// 1 //
2
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 6794/2003.
Srikaranpur Kraya-Vikraya Sahakari Samiti
Vs.
Santokh Singh & Ors.
Date of Order :: 12th September 2013.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI
Mr. Girish Sankhla, for the petitioner.
Mr. SKM Vyas, for the respondents.
<<>>
BY THE COURT:
By way of this writ petition, the petitioner Srikaranpur Kraya-Vikraya Sahakari Samiti Limited, Sri Karanpur and its Chief Executive Officer have questioned the order dated 06.06.2003, as passed by the Additional Registrar (Appeals), Co-operative Societies, Jodhpur in Revision Petition No. 4/2002, which was preferred by the Ex-Manager of the Society Shri Santokh Singh (respondent No.1 herein) with reference to Section 128 of the then applicable Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 ('the Act of 1965') read with Section 107 of the newly enacted Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 2001 ('the Act of 2001') against the inquiry report dated 09.01.2002, as made by the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bikaner under Sub-sections (6) and (7) of Section 70 of the Act of 1965.
By the impugned order dated 06.06.2003, the learned Additional Registrar, while exercising revisional powers, has quashed the inquiry report dated 09.01.2002.
The order impugned has been challenged by the S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 6794/2003. Srikaranpur Kraya-Vikraya Sahakari Samiti Vs. Santokh Singh & Ors.
// 2 // petitioner-Society with the submissions that the revisional authority has exceeded its jurisdiction and, without recording requisite findings, has proceeded to upset the considered order passed by the subordinate authority. It is also submitted that pursuant to the report made under Sub-section (6) and (7) of Section 70 of the Act of 1965, further proceedings were to be taken up, including those under Section 74 of the Act of 1965 wherein, adjudication over the charges would have been made but, without allowing the natural course of action after the report by the inquiry Officer, the revisional authority has proceeded to interfere rather at a pre-mature stage.
Pet contra, it is contended on behalf of the respondent No.1 that he has superannuated in the year 2009 and hence, for all practical purposes, this petition has been rendered infructuous. It is also submitted that the revisional authority has thoroughly considered all the allegations and has given the findings with reasons on all the issues calling for determination; and, therefore, no case for interference in the writ jurisdiction is made out.
After having given a thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and having examined the record, this Court is of the view that the matter deserves to be sent back to the revisional authority for consideration afresh in accordance with law, particularly when the impugned order appears suffering from jurisdictional errors.
As the matter is proposed to be restored to the file of the S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 6794/2003. Srikaranpur Kraya-Vikraya Sahakari Samiti Vs. Santokh Singh & Ors.
// 3 // revisional authority for consideration afresh, dilatation on all the factual aspects does not appear necessary. In a brief reference to the background aspects, suffice would be to notice that the respondent No.1 had earlier been working as Manager with the petitioner-Society. There were complaints about his conduct and working wherefor, the inquiry proceedings were taken up per Section 70 of the Act of 1965 wherein, the Inquiry Officer was directed to inquire into the following points:-
"1- सम त क तक ल न नजर श सन खमसह द र तक ल न पश सक एव उप रजजस! र स ररमलव ह स य ब%न य त प ण( कर य प)र न 5 वर+ क य त भत ब%ल. क भग ) न प प कर सम त क ह तन पह1च ई क सम%न5 6 ।
2- श सन खमसह द र सम त क पस व द9न क
28.9.87 प रर करव कर गल प9 ननत प प करन एव
5 र 70(6) क ह तनक ल गई आर पप र मशय. क<
वसल) नह करव न ।
3- श सन खमसह क पवरद ज र 5 र 70(6)(7) एव
74(2) 6 तनक ल गई वसम) लय ज नह करव कर सम त
क ह तन पह1च न आद9 ।
4- श सन खमसह द र नय य लय. 6 लजम% पकर(.
6 पभ व पक पस ) न करन क क र( सस@ क< 9
9क
) न. क फसल सस@ क पवरद ह)आ जजसस सम त क
न)कश न ह)आ ।
5- श सन खमसह तक ल न नजर द र श
र जक) र सठC भ0 प
1 1 0 क च
D र क सव 6 नय य लय क
तन(Dय अन)स र लन क पकर( 6 अन वशयक 9र कर एव
ल क नन य उचच नय य लय 6 ल ज कर सम त
क आर@Dक ह तन पह1च ई । इस सम%न5 6 ककस पक र
क पस व आद9 प रर न न जK ल उचच
नय य लय 6 ज ज य गय । ज च 6 प1(D पववर( द9य
ज व6 ।
6- श क0 एन 0 मसह सह यक वयवस@ पक क कस 6
नन य र जय त द र द9य गय तन(Dय द9न क
14.11.2000 क< कNय जनवत न करन ।
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 6794/2003. Srikaranpur Kraya-Vikraya Sahakari Samiti Vs. Santokh Singh & Ors.
// 4 // 7- श नरमसह न र य( त व ड प1वD क च D र क लन क सम%न5 6 ह)ई ह तन क आकलन ।
8- श पनन मसह क सव तनवपP त क पश तP य) पर भ
उस सव 6 न ह)ए गल र क स उसक आरश श
सतयनR क) र क नSकर पर लन क सम%न5 6 ज च ।".
The Inquiry Officer made the report dated 09.01.2002 and, on several of the points above-mentioned, recommended adopting of disciplinary proceedings or recovery proceedings except Point No. 6 that was dropped. A perusal of the impugned order dated 06.06.2003, as passed by the revisional authority, makes out that on several of the points/issues, the revisional authority took into consideration the submissions made by the revisionist (respondent No.1 herein) on merits and straightaway recorded its conclusion that a matter of taking up disciplinary proceedings was not made out. As regards point No. 8, where the Inquiry Officer referred to the want of production of complete record but suggested disciplinary proceedings, the revisional authority observed that no inquiry having been made by the Inquiry Officer, the said point was not proved against the revisionist. With these observations, the revisional authority proceeded to allow the revision petition and quashed the inquiry result dated 09.01.2002.
For appreciating the scope and ambit of the revisional powers, appropriate it shall be to take note of the provisions of Section 128 of the Act of 1965 as under:-
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 6794/2003. Srikaranpur Kraya-Vikraya Sahakari Samiti Vs. Santokh Singh & Ors.
// 5 // "128. Power of the Government and Registrar to call for proceeding of subordinate officers and to pass orders thereon.-(1) The State Government and the Registrar may call for and examine the record of any inquiry or the proceedings of any other matter of any officer subordinate to them, except those referred to in section 125, for the purpose of satisfying themselves as to the legality or propriety of any decision or order passed, and as to the regularity of the proceedings of such officer.
If in any case, it appears to the State Government, or the Registrar, that any decision or order or proceeding so called for should be modified, annulled, or reversed, the State Government or the Registrar, as the case may be, may after giving persons affected thereby an opportunity of being heard, pass such order thereon as it or he thinks just:
Provided that every application to the Registrar or the Government for the exercise of the powers under this section shall be preferred within ninety days from the date on which the proceedings, decision or order to which the application relates was communicated to the applicant.
Provided further that the Registrar shall not exercise the powers under this section in case in which an appeal lies to him under this Act.
Explanation.- For the purpose of this sub-section, the Assistant Registrar, Deputy Registrar and Joint Registrar exercising all or any of the powers of the Registrar under this Act shall be deemed to be subordinate to the Registrar.
(2) Pending the hearing under sub-section (1), the Government or the Registrar may pass such interlocutory order as it or he thinks fit to prevent the ends of justice from being defeated."
The same powers are seen in the akin provisions contained in Section 107 of the Act of 2001. Apparent it is that in exercise of such powers, the State Government or the authority concerned may call for the record for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality and propriety of the order passed by, and as to the regularity of the proceedings of, the subordinate authority. Obviously, if the revisional authority at all seeks to interfere in the decision or order or proceedings of the subordinate authority, it has to point out with reasons as to S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 6794/2003. Srikaranpur Kraya-Vikraya Sahakari Samiti Vs. Santokh Singh & Ors.
// 6 // what irregularity has crept in the proceedings.
From a perusal of the order impugned, it appears that the revisional authority has proceeded to record its own findings on all the issues without specifically dealing with and meeting with the findings and observations of the subordinate authority and without even pointing out as to why the decision or order was considered to be illegal or improper; or as to whether any irregularity in the proceedings was found.
So far the fact of superannuation of respondent No.1 is concerned, not much comments appear requisite because, looking to the nature of the allegations, the fact of superannuation, by itself, cannot be treated as rendering the entire cause infructuous. Such a contention has only been noted to be rejected.
In the aforesaid view of the matter, without dilatation on the merits of the case, it appears just and proper that the impugned order dated 06.06.2003 be set aside and the matter be restored to the file of the revisional authority to deal with the revision petition on its merits in accordance with law, particularly keeping in view the parameters of its revisional jurisdiction as also the observations foregoing.
Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed to the extent and in the manner indicated above. The impugned order dated 06.06.2003 is set aside; and Revision Petition No. 4/2002 is restored to the file of the revisional authority.
The parties through their counsel shall stand at notice to S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 6794/2003. Srikaranpur Kraya-Vikraya Sahakari Samiti Vs. Santokh Singh & Ors.
// 7 // appear before the revisional authority on 30.10.2013. The revisional authority shall be expected to take an early decision in the matter. In the interest of justice, it is again made clear that this Court has not pronounced on the merits of the case either way.
No costs.
(DINESH MAHESHWARI), J.
//Mohan//