When the authority whose prior concurrence is needed for a particular action becomes authorized to take the action, the action complies with the rules.

Headnote:
suspension - Co-operative Bank - The court rejected the challenge to the suspension order, stating that when the authority whose prior concurrence is needed for a particular action becomes authorized to take the action, the action complies with the rules. The court refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits of the charges as it is a matter for the appointed officer to handle. The court also noted that the appointment of the Enquiry Officer can be challenged before the District Assistant Registrar.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner challenged the suspension order passed against him by the District Assistant Registrar as Member-Secretary of the Co-operative Bank, citing unworkability of the rules and challenging the order on merits.
Finding of the Court:

The court rejected the challenge to the suspension order, refrained from expressing opinion on the merits of the charges, and noted that the appointment of the Enquiry Officer can be challenged before the District Assistant Registrar.
Issues: Challenge to suspension order and appointment of Enquiry Officer.
Ratio Decidendi: When the authority whose prior concurrence is needed for a particular action becomes authorized to take the action, the action complies with the rules. The court refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits of the charges as it is a matter for the appointed officer to handle. The appointment of the Enquiry Officer can be challenged before the District Assistant Registrar.
Final Decision: The writ petition is dismissed summarily. Petition dismissed.

( 1 ) BY the Court. The petitioner has challenged the order of suspension passed against him by the District Assistant Registrar as Member-Secretary of the concerned Co-operative Bank. The order is challenged on two grounds; first, that in view of the amendment in U. P. Co-operative Credit societies (Centralised Services) Rules, Rule 14 which authorises the Member Secretary of the District Committee to suspend a member of the centralised services, has become unworkable inasmuch as the District Assistant Registrar whose prior concurrence is required under clause (v) of Rule 14 of the aforesaid rules has himself become the Member-Secretary of the District committee. It is contended that under the old rules prior concurrence of the District Assistant Registrar was required because at that time the secretary of the District Co-operative Bank used to be the Member-Secretary of the District Committee. Now the District Assistant Registrar himself has become the Member-Secretary of the District Committee. That being so, the provision for obtaining prior concurrence before suspending a member of the centralised service contemplated under Rule 14 has become unworkable ; secondly, that the order is bad on merits.

( 2 ) WE cannot agree, wehre as here, the authority whose prior concurrence is needed for a particular action, himself becomes authorised to take action, the action cannot be assailed merely on the ground that the provisions for obtaining prior concurrence carries no meaning. The two authorities having been merged in a single functionary the District Assistant registrar the action taken by that functionary would be deemed to comply with Rule 14 (v) both in letter and spirit. We, therefore, reject the first contention.

( 3 ) AS to challenge to the order of suspension on merits, we refrain from experssing any opinion on the merits of the charges because that is a matter which shall be dealt with by the officer who has been appointed to conduct the enquiry against the petitioner.

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel lastly submitted that the Additional District co-operative Officer who has been named as the Enquiry Officer had himself filed the complaint on the basis of which the petitioner was placed under suspension This could not be done, it was urged, under the Rules. This; again is a matter which can be agitated before the District Assistant registrar himself. If legally the Additional District Co-operative Officer cannot be appointed as Enquiry Officer in view of the fact that the complaint was made by him, the District Assistant Registrar can be approached for a suitable modification in the order passed by him as regards the appointment of the Enquiry Officer.

( 5 ) WITH these observations the writ petition is dismissed summarily. Petition dismissed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

1989 Supreme(All) 130

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABADA. N. VERMA, B. L. YADAVBRIJENDRA SINGH SENGAR - AppellantVersusMEMBER-SECRETARY DISTT., ASST., REGISTRAR, CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY - RespondentsW. P. 4908 Of 1989Decided On : 02/24/1989

When the authority whose prior concurrence is needed for a particular action becomes authorized to take the action, the action complies with the rules.

Judicial Analysis

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
A. N. VERMA, B. L. YADAV
BRIJENDRA SINGH SENGAR - Appellant
Versus
MEMBER-SECRETARY DISTT., ASST., REGISTRAR, CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY - Respondents
W. P. 4908 Of 1989
Decided On : 02/24/1989