Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Bannaram Meena S/O Shri Ramkhiladi ... vs Registrar, Co-Operative Societies on 26 August, 2020
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9280/2020
Bannaram Meena S/o Shri Ramkhiladi Meena
----Petitioner
Versus
Registrar, Co-Operative Societies
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rakesh Kumar
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sajjan Singh Raghav, AAG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
Order
26/08/2020
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned
Additional Advocate General for the State.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the initial
enquiry indicting the petitioner, was conducted by Committee
headed by Registrar and the Registrar himself submitted his report
indicting the petitioner whereafter proceedings under Section 30
of the Cooperative Societies Act have been initiated by the same
person namely, the Registrar and order has been passed for
removal by the same authority. Learned counsel for the petitioner
relies on interim order passed by Coordinate Bench at Principal Seat, Jodhpur in SBCWP No.18340/2019 Badri Lal Jat Versus State of Rajasthan dated 27th Feb, 2020 to submit that in identical matter relying upon the judgment passed in case of State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. Versus Sanjay Nagayach & Ors.: (2013) 7 SCC 25, the Coordinate Bench has proceeded to stay the notice with regard to removal issued under Section 30 of the Act.
(Downloaded on 26/08/2020 at 09:18:36 PM)
(2 of 3) [CW-9280/2020] Mr. SS Raghav, AAG however submits that the charges against the petitioner were of grievous nature and a complaint was received from Vidhan Sabha with regard to conduct of Chairman - petitioner in relation to Alwar. The society and the Registrar formed a committee which conducted an enquiry and reached to the conclusion of misconduct of the petitioner. In view thereof, relying upon such a report, the action was taken under Section 30(2) of the Act 2002 by the Registrar and the order dated 30th June, 2020 was accordingly passed. Learned counsel further submits that the authority conducting enquiry, although may be that of Registrar, but on account of specific provision under Section 30(2), it is the Registrar who himself is required to pass the order.
I have considered the submissions.
Prima facie, this court finds that in State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. Versus Sanjay Nagayach & Ors. : (2013) 7 SCC 25, the similar issue was under consideration before the Apex Court wherein it reached to the conclusion i.e elected Board of Directors cannot be put out of office by an illegal order. The same authority which has indicted a person, cannot be allowed to examine in show cause notice based on such indiction as he would apparently be biased while hearing the concerned person against whom action is proposed under Section 30(2) of the Act of 2001. This court also notices that almost similar provision exists while initiating proceedings under Section 57 of the Cooperative Societies Act where it is provided as under:
" Provided that no enquiry into the conduct shall be done under this section by a person who has earlier (Downloaded on 26/08/2020 at 09:18:36 PM) (3 of 3) [CW-9280/2020] submitted report of audit, enquiry, inspection or liquidation in the same matter."
Thus, prima facie a person, who has conducted an enquiry under Section 55 (5) and (6) of the Act, cannot be allowed to again conduct enquiry under Section 30(2) and pass orders.
Similar view has also been taken by Coordinate Bench in SBCWP No.18340/2019 at Principal Seat, Jodhpur.
Admit.
Notice need not be issued as respondents are already represented.
In the meanwhile and till further orders, the effect and operation of order dated 30th June, 2020 and subsequent appellate order dated 13th August, 2020 shall remain stayed and the petitioner would be allowed to perform his duties as Chairman till further orders.
(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J NITIN/SAURABH /58 (Downloaded on 26/08/2020 at 09:18:36 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)