Back
2025 Supreme(Raj) 2115
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
REKHA BORANA, J.
Fazale Rashid S/o Shri Mohammed Sagir - Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10575/2025
Decided on : 08-09-2025
For the Petitioner: Mr. Ashok Kumar Chaudhary
For the Respondent: Mr. Samir Shrimali, Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sinha, Mr. Gaurav Ranka for Mr. Muktesh Maheshwari
The court established that fairness in disciplinary proceedings mandates serving an unfavorable inquiry report to the concerned individual, to uphold principles of natural justice.
Headnote:(A) Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 2001 - Sections 55 and 57 - Inquiry against a cooperative society manager - Petitioner challenged inquiry procedure and validity under Section 57 of the Act claiming infringement of natural justice principles - Court ruled that while there is no express requirement for serving the inquiry report, principles of natural justice mandate its provision if the report is unfavorable - Court directed the respondents to furnish a copy of the report to the petitioner to ensure fair representation in the ongoing inquiry. (Paras 6, 12, 16, 18)
(B) Legal principles of inquiry - Importance of fair notice and opportunity to defend in disciplinary proceedings, emphasizing that denial of the inquiry report can lead to injustice and violate constitutional rights. (Para 16)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was subject to an inquiry as per Section 55 of the Act of 2001, followed by notice under Section 57, with disputes over the provision of the inquiry report.
Findings of Court:
Court held that despite no statutory requirement for service, the inquiry report must be provided to uphold justice principles upon a negative finding.
Issues: The validity of the inquiry process and whether non-service of the inquiry report constitutes a breach of natural justice.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated the necessity of providing a copy of the inquiry report to the delinquent for a fair defense, as per established legal precedents regarding disciplinary actions.
Result: The petition was disposed of with a direction to supply the inquiry report within two weeks.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. inquiry initiated against society manager under relevant provisions. (Para 1 , 2 , 6) |
| 2. defense raised on grounds of natural justice violation and use of forged document. (Para 7 , 8 , 10) |
| 3. court emphasizes the right to a copy of inquiry report, ensuring justice. (Para 12 , 14 , 16) |
| 4. directives issued for compliance with fair inquiry procedures. (Para 18 , 20) |
ORDER :
REKHA BORANA, J.
1. The present writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:
“a) By an appropriate Writ, order or directions the order dated 13.12.2024 (Annex-7) and consequential notice dated 06.03.2025 (annexure-8), may kindly be quashed and set aside;
b) Any other order or direction, which the Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper be passed in favour of the petitioner;
c) Costs of this petition may kindly be allowed to the petitioner;”
2. The facts are that the petitioner, who is working as Vyavasthapak (Manager) with respondent No.5-Society, was subjected to inquiry in terms of Section 55 of Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 2001’). The inquiry officer submitted his report dated 09.12.2024 to the competent authority. The inquiry officer recommended for an inquiry to be held in terms of Section 57 of the Act of 2001.
3. The competent authority i.e. the Sub-Registrar, vide order dated 13.12.2024 appointed the inquiry officer who in turn served a notice dated 23.12.2024 on the petitioner calling upon him to file his defence and the documents in support thereof qua the charges as reflected in the said notice.
4. The inquiry officer, after concluding the inquiry, submitted his inquiry report to the competent authority who in terms of Section 57 (2) read with Rule 75 (2) of the Rajasthan Cooperative Society Rules, 2003, called upon the petitioner to file his reply with the supporting documents qua the charges as reflected in the notice dated 06.03.2025.
5. Aggrieved of the above, the present writ petition has been filed.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner raised the following two grounds:
Firstly, the enquiry report as referred to in notice dated 06.03.2025 (Annexure-8), was never served on the petitioner which is against the principles of natural justice. In absence of such report being served, the petitioner is not in a position to file his reply/defense.
Secondly, the notice issued in terms of Section 57 (1) of the Act of 2001 itself was not valid as any enquiry in terms of the said provision could not have been initiated after expiry of six years from the date of act or omission whereas admittedly, the charges as leveled against the petitioner pertain to the period more than six years ago.
7. Per contra learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that there is no provision mandating the service of copy of the enquiry report on the delinquent. The only requirement in terms of Section 57 (2) of the Act of 2001 is of affording an opportunity of representation, after the enquiry report in terms of Section 57 (2) of the Act of 2001 been received by the Registrar. Notice dated 06.03.2025 is definitely in terms of Section 57 (2) of the Act of 2001.
8. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 Co-operative Bank submits that the petitioner has acted in a malafide manner, as on the one hand, he has already participated in the proceedings initiated vide notice dated 06.03.2025 and on the other hand, he has filed the present petition challenging the said notice.
9. Learned counsel submits that even otherwise the petitioner would be at liberty to file his defense, whatsoever, in the proceedings now initiated.
10. Additionally, learned counsel made a specific averment that the petitioner has placed a forged document on record of the present petition. He submits that Annexure 16, the document annexed along with the rejoinder as filed by the petitioner, is a forged document as the alleged Issuing Authority of said letter dated 09.08.2021 was not even the Authority holding the office on the said date a
