1990 Supreme(HP) 87

High Court Of Himachal Pradesh
P.C.BALAKRISHNA,DEVINDER GUPTA
V.D.KALIA - Appellant
Versus
BILASPUR DISTRICT COOPERATIVE MARKETING AND CONSUMER FEDERATION LIMITED, BILASPUR - Respondent
L. P. A. No. 34 of 1990
Decided On : 09/16/1990

The Government's revisional jurisdiction under section 94 of the Himachal Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1968 extends to orders passed by the Registrar, and the proceedings referred to in section 94 of the Act would take in also the disciplinary proceedings initiated against an officer of the society.

Headnote:

CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES - SERVICE TERMINATION - NATURAL JUSTICE - ENQUIRY - REVISION - DELAY - LEGALITY OF ORDER - INTERPRETATION OF RULES - JURISDICTION OF GOVERNMENT.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant, an employee of the respondent society, was dismissed from service without an enquiry. He challenged the dismissal order before the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, who set aside the order and directed the society to institute a proper enquiry. The society filed a revision petition before the Registrar, who restored the dismissal order. The appellant challenged the Registrar's order before the High Court, which quashed the order on the ground that the Government had exercised its suo motu power of revision under section 94 of the Himachal Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1968 after a period of about eight years, which was beyond a reasonable time for the exercise of the suo motu power of revision.

Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that the Government had rightly exercised its suo motu power of revision under section 94 of the Act, as the Registrar's order was illegal and unsustainable in law. The Court also held that the society's rule, which authorized the Board of Directors to summarily dismiss a paid employee without notice or enquiry, was arbitrary and opposed to Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court further held that the Government's revisional jurisdiction under section 94 of the Act extended to orders passed by the Registrar, and that the proceedings referred to in section 94 of the Act would take in also the disciplinary proceedings initiated against an officer of the society.

Issues: 1. Whether the Government had rightly exercised its suo motu power of revision under section 94 of the Act after a period of about eight years? 2. Whether the society's rule, which authorized the Board of Directors to summarily dismiss a paid employee without notice or enquiry, was arbitrary and opposed to Article 14 of the Constitution? 3. Whether the Government's revisional jurisdiction under section 94 of the Act extended to orders passed by the Registrar?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the Government had rightly exercised its suo motu power of revision under section 94 of the Act, as the Registrar's order was illegal and unsustainable in law. The Court observed that the mere fact that the Government had exercised its revisional jurisdiction after a considerable lapse of time could not be a ground to interfere with the order of Government in a case like this where the employee would be put to great prejudice as his writ petition had been dismissed as infructuous for the reason of the Government order. 2. The Court held that the society's rule, which authorized the Board of Directors to summarily dismiss a paid employee without notice or enquiry, was arbitrary and opposed to Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court observed that the rule, however, required that dismissal can only be on the grounds mentioned in the rule, namely, grave misconduct, insubordination, fraud and mis-appropriation of Federations fund or goods. Unless there is a finding in regard to any of these grounds, it will not be within the jurisdiction of the appointing authority to dismiss a paid employee of the society. 3. The Court held that the Government's revisional jurisdiction under section 94 of the Act extended to orders passed by the Registrar. The Court observed that the proceedings referred to in section 94 of the Act would take in also the disciplinary proceedings initiated against an officer of the society and the order terminating his services is the culmination of the proceedings which can very well be the subject of revision under section 94 of the 1968 Act.

Final Decision: The High Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the writ petition filed by the society. The Court set aside the judgment of the learned single Judge and restored the order of the Government, which had set aside the Registrar's order and directed the society to institute a proper enquiry.