IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
S.N. PATHAK, J.
Subhash Chandra Singh S/o Late Braj Nandan Singh – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
W.P. (S) No. 1670 of 2021
Decided On : 06-08-2024
(A) Jharkhand Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2016 - Resolution No. 1038 dated 07.10.2003 - Jurisdiction of Registrar, Co-operative Societies - The Registrar acted beyond jurisdiction in initiating departmental proceedings against the petitioner, violating the resolution that transferred authority to the Government. The punishment imposed was quashed as it lacked jurisdiction and proper procedure. (Paras 30-31)
(B) Quasi-Judicial Proceedings - The Law of Limitation Act does not apply unless specified - The court found that the delay in proceedings was not a valid ground for dismissal, as the Limitation Act does not govern quasi-judicial proceedings unless explicitly stated. (Paras 30-31)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the departmental proceedings initiated by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, claiming lack of jurisdiction and improper procedure in the imposition of punishment. The petitioner was accused of financial misconduct, but the charges were not substantiated. (Paras 3-31)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the Registrar had no authority to impose punishment and that the proceedings were initiated without jurisdiction, leading to the quashing of the orders against the petitioner. (Paras 30-31)
Issues: The main issues included the jurisdiction of the Registrar to initiate proceedings and the applicability of the Limitation Act in quasi-judicial matters. (Paras 30-31)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that actions taken without jurisdiction are void, and the authority to impose punishment must be clearly defined and adhered to. The court emphasized the importance of following proper procedures in disciplinary actions. (Paras 30-31)
Result: The orders against the petitioner were quashed, and the writ petition was allowed.
JUDGMENT :
S.N. PATHAK, J.
1. Heard the parties.
PRAYER OF THE PETITIONER
2. The instant writ petitioner has been filed with multiple prayers:
(ii) For quashing the order as contained in memo no. 615 dated 27.05.2006 (Annexure-13) passed by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Jharkhand Ranchi (Respondent No. 4) whereby punishment of Stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect and recovery of Rs. 1,90,000/- which were paid illegally to daily wages employee of the society has been imposed with further punishment that the petitioner be not posted on any post involving financial responsibility and that the punishment be incorporated in the service book of the petitioner. Further prayer has been made to quash the letter no. 958 dated 09.06.2006 (Annexure-15) by which the then Secretary, Co-operative Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi has directed the Assistant Registrar to comply the order passed by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies imposing punishment upon the petitioner.
(iii) For quashing the Appellate order dated 05.12.2012 passed by respondent no. 2 and served vide letter no. 3384 dated 08.12.2012 (Annexure-18) whereby and whereunder the appellate authority rejected the appeal arbitrary, mechanically, without proper appreciation of the ground raised by the petitioner in the memo of appeal which is after more than five years of filing of the appeal and also without considering that the Registrar, Co-operative society has no unbridled and unanalyzed power and jurisdiction to surpass the resolution of the Government contained in Memo no. 1038 dated 07.10.2003.
(iv) For quashing the Review order as contained in memo no. 1806 dated 24.12.2020 (Annexure-19/1) passed by Respondent No. 2 whereby and where under review preferred by the petitioner against the appellate order dated 05.12.2012 has been rejected after more than 5 years of filing the review, on the ground of limitation, without considering that in Quasi Judicial proceeding the law of limitation Act is not applicable if otherwise specially mentioned in the Act. And also in a very arbitrary, mechanical manner, without proper appreciation of the opinion of the Registrar, Co-operative Societies given on 11.01.2018 obtained by the petitioner through Right to Information, Act.
(v) For direction upon the respondents to withdraw the punishment order passed vide memo no. 615 dated 27.05.2006 and pay all consequential benefits to the petitioner arises due to this illegal order of punishment.
FACTS OF THE CASE
3. The factual exposition as has been delineated in the writ petition is that while posted as Co-operative Extension Officer in the office of the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Ranchi Circle, Ranchi, the petitioner was appointed as Administrator of Foundry and Forged Credit Co-operative Society Limited, Dhurwa, Ranchi by the order of Secretary, Co-operative Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi dated 21.11.2003. The Government of Jharkhand, vide its resolution as contained in Memo No. 1038, dated 07.10.2003, Co-operative Department, decided that the Government of Jharkhand would be competent authority and all the works related to establishment in respect of Supervisory Officer (which includes Co-operative Extension Officer) shall be conducted at the level of Government and the power of Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Jharkhand, Ranchi were withdrawn by the Government. However, ignoring the said resolution of the Government dated 07.10.2003, the Registrar, Co-operative Societi
Badrinath v. Govt. of Tamil Nadu
Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Limited and others Vs. Ananta Saha and others
S.R. Bommai Vs. Union of India
The Registrar of Co-operative Societies lacked jurisdiction to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, rendering the punishment invalid.
Court upheld the authority's power to review its decisions, emphasizing adherence to procedural justice in employment termination cases under cooperative statutes.
Ex parte Order - Review of order of appellate authority - Power under Section 152 of Code are neither to be equated with power of review nor can be said to be akin to review or even said to clothe th....
The disciplinary authority that initiates proceedings must be the appointing authority; actions taken by a subordinate authority are illegal and violate principles of natural justice.
Disciplinary proceedings against government servants must be initiated with proper authorization from the competent authority, failing which the proceedings are rendered void.
Disciplinary proceedings must be approved by the competent authority; failure to do so renders the proceedings void.
Charge memo in disciplinary proceedings must be approved by the disciplinary authority; lack thereof renders entire proceedings vitiated ab initio, warranting quashing without remand in peculiar circ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.