District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. , Tikamgarh vs Imarat Singh Dangi

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2013 Supreme(MP) 582

¼mPp U;k;ky;½ o (HIGH COURT)
U;k- ,-ds- JhokLro rFkk U;k- Jherh foeyk tSu
A.K. Shrivastava and Smt. Vimla Jain, JJ.
ftyk dsanzh; lgdkjh cSad fyfe-] Vhdex<+ fo- bejr flag nkaxh rFkk vU;
District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Tikamgarh v. Imarat Singh Dangi and others
fjV ;kfpdk Øekad 6444 lu~ 2004 ¼tcyiqj½% e-iz- jkT; lgdkjh vf/kdj.k }kjk iqujh{k.k Øekad 181@2000 esa ikfjr vkns’k fnukad 3-4-2002 ds fo:)( fu.khZr fnukad 25-10-2013A
Writ Petition No. 6444 of 2004 (Jabalpur): against order dated 3.4.2002 passed in Revision No. 181/2000 by M.P. State Cooperative Tribunal; Decided on 25.10.2013.

Advocates:
Ogh-ds-‘kqDyk ;kph dh vksj ls( lat; ds- vxzoky izR;FkhZx.k Øekad 1 ls 4 dh vksj lsA
V.K. Shukla for petitioner; Sanjay K. Agrawal for respondents No. 1 to 4.

Headnote:¼1½ lgdkjh lkslkbVh vf/kfu;e] 1960 ¼e-Á-½ & /kkjk 77] 64 rFkk 55 & iqujh{k.k vf/kdkfjrk & 60 izfr’kr olwyh dk y{; iw.kZ ugha fd;k & dsoy dkj.k crkvksa lwpuk ds vk/kkj ij vfuok;Z lsok&fuo`fŸk dk vkns’k & vkns’k fof/k dh n`f”V ls nks”kiw.kZ gS & ,sls vkns’k ds fo:) iqujh{k.k & fookn dk vkuqdfYid mipkj & iqujh{k.k vf/kdkfjrk dk iz;ksx djus ds fy, otZu ugha & ,slk vkns’k vf/kdj.k }kjk lgh&gh vikLr fd;k x;kA
       vfHkfu/kkZfjr% dkj.k crkvksa lwpuk fnukad 4-6-1999 ¼mikca/k ih@3½ ds vk/kkj ij iqujh{k.kdrkZvksa dks psrkouh tkjh dh xbZ fd ;fn 30 twu 1999 rd 60 izfr’kr olwyh ugha dh tkrh gS] os vfuok;Z:i ls lsok&fuo`r fd, tk,xsA gekjs vuqlkj] fo}ku vf/kdj.k us lgh&gh ik;k fd ;g izca/ku dh vksj ls Lo;a gh ,d ladsr gS fd os izR;FkhZx.k@iqujh{k.kdrkZvksa dks vfuok;Z:i ls lsok fuo`Ÿk fd;k tkuk vo/kkfjr dj pqds gSA ¼iSjk 5½
       vf/kdj.k ds vk{ksfir vkns’k ds voyksdu ek= ls] ;g U;k;ky; ikrk gS fd ;kfpdkdrkZvksa ds lsok vfHkys[k rFkk lacaf/kr vU; miknku ij fopkj fd, fcuk cSad }kjk lh/kk fgVyj fu.kZ; fy;k x;k] blfy,] fo}ku vf/kdkj.k us lgh&gh Bgjk;k fd ,slk vfuok;Z lsok&fuo`fŸk dk vkns’k fLFkj ugha j[kk tk ldrk ¼iSjk 6½
       ¼2½ ftyk lgdkjh dsanzh; cSad deZpkjh lsok ¼fu;kstu fuca/ku rFkk dk;Z fLFkfr½ fu;e] 1982 ¼e-Á-½ & fu- 72 ¼,d½ & dsoy dkj.k crkvks lwpuk ds vk/kkj ij vfuok;Z lsok&fuo`fŸk dk vkns’k & rhu ekl dk osru ugha fn;k x;k & okf”kZd xksiuh; fjiksZVl ij fopkj ugha fd;k x;k & vfuok;Z lsok&fuo`fŸk dk naM fof/k dh n`f”V ls nks”kiw.kZ gSA ¼iSjk 6 ,oa 7½
       ¼3½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku & vuq- 226 & dh O;kfIr & vfuok;Z lsok&fuo`fŸk dk vkns’k vikLr & deZpkjh iqu% inLFk & lsokfuo`fŸk cdk;k & ;|fi bl laca/k esa i`Fkd~ ls ;kfpdk izLrqr ugha & og ,sls cdk;k ds fy, gd~nkj gS & ,sls cdk;k ds Hkqxrku djus ds fy, funs’k fn;k x;kA ¼iSjk 8 ,oa 9½

        (1) Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (M.P.) -- Ss. 77, 64 and 55 -- revisional jurisdiction -- target of 60% recovery not made -- order of compulsory retirement merely on basis of show cause notice -- order is bad in law -- revision against such order -- alternative remedy of dispute -- no bar for exercising of revisional jurisdiction -- such order rightly set aside by Tribunal.
       Held: On the basis of a show cause notice dated 4.6.1999 (annexure P/3) warning was issued to the revisionists that if 60% recovery of the petitioner Society is not made by 30th June, 1999, they shall be retired compulsorily. According to us, learned Tribunal rightly found that this itself is an indication by the Management to the respondents/revisionists that they are determined to retire the revisionists compulsorily. [Para 5
       On bare perusal of the impugned order of the Tribunal, this Court finds that without going throught the service record and other material pertaining to the revisionists, straightaway such a Hitler decision was taken by the Bank and, therefore, the learned Tribuanl rightly came to hold that such type of order of compulsory retirement cannot be upheld. [Paras 6
       (2) District Cooperative Central Bank Employees Services (Terms of Employment and Working Conditions) Rules, 1982 (M.P.) -- R. 72 (i) -- order of compulsory retirement merely on basis of show cause notice -- salary of three months not given -- annual confidential reports not considered -- punishment of compulsory retirement is bad in law. [Paras 6 and 7
       (3) Constitution of India -- Art 226 -- scope of -- order of compulsory retirement set aside -- employee reinstated -- retiral dues -- although no separate petition filed in this regard -- he is entitled for such dues -- direction given for payment of such dues. [Paras 8 and 9

ORDER

Shrivastava, J. 1. By this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Bank is seeking following reliefs:-

“(i) The Hon’ble Court be pleased to call for the entire record pertaining to the dispute for its kind consideration.

(ii) That, the Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash the order dated 3.4.2002 (contained in Annexure P/7) passed by the M.P. State Cooperative Tribunal by issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ/direction or order like nature.

(iii) Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court finds fit and proper inthe circumstances of the case given to the petitioner.”

2. Indeed the order dated 3.4.2002 passed by M.P. State Cooperative Tribunal passed in Revision No. 181/2000 (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) has been made pivot in this petition. The respondents No. 1 to 4 filed a revision application under section 77 of the M.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (for short, ‘the Act of 1960’) against their order of compulsory retirement. The learned Tribunal by the impugned order, has allowed their revision application and set aside the order of compulsory retirement dated 1.5.2000.

3. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that because the target was not being achieved by the respondents, therefore, rightly they have been retired compulsorily. Learned counsel further submits that on merit as well as on the ground of availability of alternative remedy, the revision application ought to be dismissed. According to learned counsel, a preliminary objection was raised by the petitioner before the Tribunal that there is an efficacious and alternative remedy available to the revisionists/respondents to file necessary application under section 64 of the Act of 1960 by filing a dispute before the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies and having not done so, the Tribunal was not having any jurisdiction to decide the revision application on merit, hence it has been prayed that the impugned order be set and the respondents be directed to file a dispute under section 64 of the Act of 1960 before the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies Act.

4. On the other hand Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondents/revisionists submitted that merely because the alternetive remedy was available to the revisionists, would not straightaway entail the dismissal of the revision application which otherwise was found having merit. Learned counsel for the parties have also addressed on merits of the case at length.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered veiw that this petition deserves to be dismissed.

6. On bare perusal of para 4 of the impugned order of the Tribunal, this Court finds that On the basis of a show cause notice dated 4.6.1999 (annexure P/3) warning was issued to the revisionists that if 60% recovery of the petitioner Society is not made by 30th June, 1999, they shall be retired compulsorily. According to us, learned Tribunal rightly found that this itself is an indication by the Management to the respondents/revisionists that they are determined to retire the revisionists compulsorily.

7. On bare perusal of the impugned order of the Tribunal, this Court finds that without going through the service record and other material pertaining to the revisionists, straightaway such a Hitler decision was taken by the Bank and, therefore, the learned Tribuanl rightly came to hold that such type of order of compulsory retirement cannot be upheld. That apart, under rule 72(1) of M.P. District Cooperative Central Bank Employees Service Conditions Rules, 1982, three months’ salary was not given and , therefore, for this another reason also the Tribunal came to hold tht the order of compulsory retirement is bad in law.

8. The learned Tribunal after considering various decisions of the Supreme Court and by paying heed that without going through the Annual Confidential Reports, the punishment of compulsory retirement could not

Click Here to Read the rest of this document