Important Point-Noticee could be given an opportunity to effective represent against proposed action of disqualification only when he is made aware of grounds with full particulars for which action is proposed.

C.L. Soni, J.

1. Challenge made in this petition filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India is to the order dated 10-3-2015 passed by respondent No. 2-Co-operation Commissioner and Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Gujarat State removing the petitioner as a Chairman of the Mehsana District Co-operative Milk Producers' Union Limited ("the Union") and disqualifying him from holding any office in any co-operative society or to contest the election for a period of three years in exercise of the powers under Secs. 76B(1) and (2) of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 ("the Act") and to the order dated 8-5-2015 rejecting his revision application. It is pointed out that the term of the petitioner as a Chairman has come to an end. However, since the disqualification is based on his removal as a Chairman, challenge to the order of removal will also be required to be examined.

2. It appears that the show-cause notice dated 12-1-2015 at Annexure-A was issued to the petitioner for action under Secs. 76B(1) and (2) of the Act, alleging financial and administrative irregularities as mentioned in 12 different charges levelled against him in the show-cause notice. The petitioner, initially, submitted provisional reply dated 29-1-2015 and then, final reply dated 12-2-2015 to the show-cause notice. After considering the reply of the petitioner, respondent No. 2 passed impugned order of his removal and disqualification.

3. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. S.N. Shelat appearing with learned Advocate Mr. P.S. Champaneri for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was elected Chairman of the Union and as per bye-law 44 of the Union, duty of the Chairman is to have control and not to exercise the control like exercise of supervisory power. Mr. Shelat submitted that all decisions concerning policy, finance and administration are taken collectively by the Board of Directors and the Managing Director is the executive authority who has to implement the decision taken by the Board of Directors and take other executive actions in connection with the affairs of the Union. Mr. Shelat submitted that in view of bye-law 44, the Chairman cannot be made personally responsible for alleged acts described in different charges in the show-cause notice. Mr. Shelat submitted that the petitioner had acted in the best interest of the Union as a chairman and during his tenure, Union has flourished and the farmers are benefited. Mr. Shelat submitted that the charges levelled against the petitioner would not warrant removal of the petitioner under Sec. 76B(1) of the Act. Mr. Shelat submitted that as a Chairman, the petitioner has neither violated any provision of the Act nor by-laws of the society and therefore, drastic action of removal against elected officer should not have been resorted to. Mr. Shelat submitted that none of the acts alleged in different charges in the show-cause notice was individual decision of the petitioner as chairman but were the decisions of the Board of Directors and for such decisions, the petitioner could not have been isolated for the purpose of taking action of removal under Sec. 76B(1) of the Act. On the aspect of exercise of powers under Sec. 76B(2) of the Act disqualifying the petitioner, Mr. Shelat submitted that the issuance of combined notice for removal and disqualification is not permissible in law. Mr. Shelat submitted that the word "so removed" used in sub-sec. (2) would suggest that initiation of action under Sec. 76B(2) is only after action for removal is finalized under Sec. 76B(1).

4. Mr. Shelat submitted that there is no notice for disqualification. To simply mention Sec. 76B(2) of the Act in the show-cause notice issued only for removal of the petitioner would not make it also a notice for proposed action of disqualification, especially when the petitioner is asked to show-cause only against the proposed action of removal. Mr. Shelat submitted that the petitioner in his reply has taken objection against