The Deputy Commissioner had no authority to deal with the orders passed by the governing body, and the respondent had not followed the proper procedure to challenge the termination order before the Competent Authority.

JUDGMENT :

Vishal Mishra, J.

1. The present petition is being filed by the petitioner under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs:-

"(i) That, the impugned order vide Annexure P-1 may kindly be quashed.

(ii) That, the respondent No. 1 may kindly be directed to make a detail inquiry against the respondent No. 2 in the matter take suitable legal action in accordance with law.

(iii) That, any other just and proper relief warranting under the facts and circumstances of the case including the cost of the litigation be also given to the petitioner, in the ends of justice"

2. The present petition is being preferred against the order dated 13.08.2019 (Annexure P/l) passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Cooperative, District Guna whereby the services of the respondent No. 3 are directed to be restored from Manager in place of existing Manager.

3. It is alleged that the petitioner is a registered Prathamik Laghu Van Upaj Sahkari Sanstha Fatehgarh District Guna and the petitioner being a Administrator/President of the society is having a jurisdiction to file the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Initially the respondent No. 3 was appointed on the post of Manager in the Office of the petitioner but as the work was not found satisfactory and some irregularities and illegalities were committed by him in the society, for which, the competent authority of society has issued notice to the respondent No. 3 on 02.03.2018. The initial inquiry against the petitioner was conducted and has also approved by the respondent No. 2 and in pursuance to the same, meeting of the governing body was held and the resolution was passed after following the due process of law and a decision was taken to terminate the services of the respondent No. 3 and a fresh appointment be made.

4. It is pointed out that as per the Service Rule and M.P. Cooperative Society Act, 1960 the governing body of the concerning society was having jurisdiction to terminate the employee and making appointment as per their requirement. The respondent No. 3 was having right and a legal measure to challenge the resolution passed by the governing body where by terminating his services, by raising a grievance before the Registrar or the Assistant Registrar within 30 days from the date of resolution. In terms of Section 55(2) of the M.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, the respondent No. 3 has not availed the aforesaid remedy. Instead he has approached the Local M.L.A. who has written a letter dated 30.01.2019 (Annexure P/7) directing the Deputy Registrar to look into the matter and apprise him regarding the steps be taken in pursuance to removal of the respondent No. 3. The matter was forwarded to the CEO by the Deputy Registrar on 04.02.2019. Thereafter, the impugned order has been passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Cooperative, District Guna on 13.08.2019 setting aside all the proceedings which have been initiated by the governing body on the ground that no opportunity of hearing was granted to the respondents No. 3 and has directed for reinstatement of respondent No. 3 in the services, the challenge is further made on the ground that the Deputy Commissioner was having no jurisdiction to interfere the orders passed by the governing body. It is only the domain of the Registrar under the Cooperative Societies Act 1960. Being the competent authority is having a jurisdiction to deal with such orders. The relevant provisions of Section 55(2) of the Cooperative Societies Act is required to be seen:-

"Where a dispute, including a dispute regarding terms of employment working conditions and disciplinary action taken by a society, arises between a society, arises between a society and its employees, the Registrar or any officer appointed by him not below the rank of Assistant Registrar shall decide the dispute and his decision shall be binding on the society and its employees."

5. It is pointed out that the petitioner has not availed the remedy und