Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sanjay Tulsikar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 January, 2023
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
ON THE 5 th OF JANUARY, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 9497 of 2020
BETWEEN:-
SANJAY TULSIKAR S/O SHRI JETHU LAL TULSIKAR,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCCUPATION: ASST CLERK
SAHKARI SAMITI MYDT, NEVARGAON (LA) (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI ANIL LALA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR.
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY FOOD CIVIL SUPPLIES
AND CONSUMER PROTECTION MANTRALAY
VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL M.P. (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. DEPUTY REGISTRAR COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES
DISTT.BALAGHAT (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. ADMINISTRATOR SEVA SAHKARI SAMITI MYDT.
NEVARGAON (LA) TEHSIL LALBARRA
DISTT.BALAGHAT (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. MAHESH PRASAD S/O PHOOL CHAND THAKRE
OCCUPATION: MANAGER SEVA SAHKARI SAMITI
MYDT. NEVARGAON (LA) TEHSIL LALBARRA
DISTT.BALAGHAT (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI MANAS MANI VERMA - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR STATE)
(SHRI PRAVESH NAVERIYA - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS. 3 AND
4.
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
2 Petitioner is aggrieved of actions of the respondents in terminating his service vide order dated 7.3.2020 passed by respondent No. 3 without following the procedure as laid down in Chapter 6 of Prathmik Krishi Saakh Sahkari Sanstha Ke Karmachari Seva Niyam wherein Rule 28 provides that after issuance of show cause notice to the delinquent employee, if reply is not found to be satisfactory then, what steps are to be taken in terms of the provisions contained in Clause (v) of Rule 28 onwards. It is submitted that none of this procedure was followed and at the dictates of the Dy. Registrar, Cooperative Societies, impugned order is passed, which is arbitrary and illegal.
Shri Pravesh Naveriya submits that this ground was not taken in the writ petition and, therefore, it is not open to the petitioner to raise this ground.
Shri Manas Mani Verma, learned Government Advocate submits that this petition is not maintainable and the petitioner should have availed remedy under Section 55(2) of the M.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, firstly remedy under Section 55(2) of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 would not have been efficacious and effective remedy and as much as petitioner is able to demonstrate from the records filed by respondent Nos. 3 and 4 that petitioner's services were terminated at the instance of Dy. Commissioner, Cooperative Societies, Balaghat, who had asked the Administrator/Manger to do so vide D.O. dated 6.3.2020 passed (Annexure R- 3/12). Thus, this plea of Shri Manas Mani Verma deserves to be rejected and is rejected.
As far as submission made by Shri Pravesh Naveriya is concerned, whether any issue is raised or not but the authorities while acting in consonance with the provisions of the Rules are supposed to know and follow the Rules. It 3 is admitted that Rule 28 (v) and onwards were not followed while passing impugned order (Annexure P-5).
In view of such facts, the impugned order is quashed. The matter is relegated to the competent authority to bestow its consideration and if it still decides to conduct an enquiry then conduct the same in terms of the provisions contained in the Rules and Regulations, which have been enclosed by the petitioner as (Annexure P-9) along with its rejoinder or any other Rules and Regulations which are applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case without getting influenced by any outsider including the Dy. Registrar, Cooperative Societies.
In above terms, petition is disposed of.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE PB PRADYUMNA BARVE 2023.01.05 18:57:26 +05'30'