The Chairman of a Co-operative Society has the power to suspend an employee of the Society, even if the Appointing Authority is the Board of Directors.

1. - This Special Appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949, has been filed against the order dated July 13, 1990, passed by the learned Single Judge in S B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1367/90. The appellant was appointed on October 10, 1971 in Dholpur Sahakri Boomi Vikas Bank Ltd., by respondent No. 2 and, thereafter, confirmed as LDC vide order dated August 20/27, 1973 He was promoted on the post of Supervisor vide order dated September 26, 1981 (Ex. 1) and was confirmed on this post vide order dated April 23, 1988 (Ex. 2). Vide order dated September 30, 1990 (Ex. 11), the appellant has been put under suspension, which was challenged by him in the writ petition.

2. The contention of Mr. B.L. Sharma learned counsel for the appellant, is that the petitioner has been suspended by the Secretary/Chairman, whereas the Appointing Authority of the appellant is Board of Directors, neither Secretary, nor Chairman had any authority to suspend the appellant It is further contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that Rule 41 of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Rules, 1966 (for brevity, 'the Rules 1966') indicates that it is Committee, which can place a paid officer or servant under suspension. It is further submitted that even if the Registrar, Co-operative Societies. Rajasthan, seeks suspension of an employee of a Co-operative Society, he is also required to direct the Board of Directors of the Co-operative Society to place such an employee under suspension. It is also pointed out that it also provides that disciplinary proceedings in the absence of any approved Service Rules of the co-operative Institution the Rajasthan Civil Service Rules, 1958 shall apply. It is submitted that it is evident from the notification dated 3.3.80 (Anx. 2-3/2) filed by the respondents that it is only the Appointing Authority, who can impose major penalty on the employee, therefore, only Board of Directors is competent to take disciplinary proceedings against the appellant. It is further submitted that bye law No. 30(a) of the Bye-laws mentioned above are not applicable and bye-law No. 27(f) (3) clearly provides that it is only Board of Directors, who can remove an employee from service appointed by Board of Directors.

3. A bare reading of Rule 41(4) of the Rules, 1966 shows that this Rule provides that where in the course of an audit under Section 68 or an inquiry under Section 70 or an inspection under Section 71 or 72, the Registrar is informed that a paid officer or servant of the Society is responsible for misappropriation/breach of trust/any other offence in relation to the Society, the Registrar may, if in his opinion, a prima facie evidence exists against such officer/servant, direct the Committee of the Society pendine investigation to place such paid officer/servant under suspension from such date as may be specified by him. Thus, it is evident that these provisions are attracted only when a direction is given by the Registrar. In the case under consideration, admittedly, no action has been taken under Rule 41 of the Rules, 1966 and the appellant was suspended on the directions of the Chairman of the Bank. As pointed out by Mr. Pathak, learned counsel for the respondents, that it is evident from Annx. R 2-3/4, that the appellant made an application to the Chairman of the respondent-Bank for appointment as Typist in the respondent-Bank and, thereafter, he was appointed by the Chairman vide order dated October 9, 1971 (Anx. R 2-3/5).

4. Notification dated March 3, 1980 (Annexure R 2-3/2) is issued under signature of Registrar, in which it has been mentioned that the procedure for Disciplinary action against the employees of Co-operative Institutions other than Central Co-operative Banks and Rajasthan State Co-operative Bank, in absence of any approved service rules of the Cooperative Institutions, the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1958 shall apply with amendments made t