ORDER

1. A preliminary objection is taken by the respondent No.3 in the matter that the petitioner is having an alternative and efficacious remedy of filing an appeal before the Appellate Authority in terms of the Rules, but the petitioner without availing the alternative and efficacious remedy has directly approached this Court by filing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which is not maintainable. It is submitted that the order impugned is a well reasoned and justified order passed under the relevant provisions of the Act and by the competent authority. Even if for the sake of arguments it is assumed that the order is not passed by the competent authority then the aforesaid ground can be taken care of by the appellate Authority.

2. The petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 26.9.2019 passed by the respondent No.3, whereby the petitioner's service as a Samiti Prabandak has been terminated on account of alleged grave misconduct while discharging his duty. It is stated that the impugned order has been passed without following the due procedure of law as contemplated in the statutory recruitment Rules known as Zila Sahakari Kendriya Banko Ke Sewayukto Ke (Niyojan, Nibandhan Tatha Karya Stithi) Sewa Niyam. It is submitted that the case of the petitioner could have only been considered by the Departmental Inquiry Board as defined in the Seva Niyam, who is the only competent authority to conduct inquiry as per the procedure in the Human Resources Policy framed under the Sewa Niyam. It is submitted that once the order impugned is passed by incompetent authority therefore, the alternative remedy of filing an appeal will be of no hindrance to the petitioner to prefer a writ petition before this Hon'ble Court in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and others [(1998) 8 SCC 1]. In such circumstances the petition directly before this Court for want of alternative remedy is maintainable.

3. It is further submitted that in terms of the law laid down in the case of Sevaram v. Board of Revenue [1983 RN 353] the provisions of Sewa Niyam governing the service conditions of the employees, particularly with respect to the disciplinary proceedings are statutory in nature, therefore, the writ petition is maintainable. He has further relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M.P. Rajya Sahakari Bank v. State of M.P. and others [2007 (12) SCC 529].

4. In view of the aforesaid submissions made by the rival parties and considering the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Whirlpool Corporation (supra), as well as M.P. Rajya Sahkari Bank (supra), the petition is held to be maintainable.

5. The petitioner was initially appointed as a Samiti Prabandhak on 8.9.1998 in the respondent no.3 establishment. In exercise of powers under section 55 (1) of the Act of 1960, the respondent No.2 has framed the Sewa Niyam, which are having a statutory force in view of the Full Bench judgment in the case of Sewaram (supra). On the basis of false complaint the petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 19.1.2015 on account of financial irregularities. On 28.2.2015 he was served with a charge-sheet and vide order dated 13.3.2015 one Ram Kumar Sharma has been appointed as inquiry officer to conduct inquiry on account of misconduct of serious financial irregularities. On taking objection by petitioner one inquiry committee has been constituted in which Neeraj Mehra (Branch Manager), Satya Prakash Arya (Branch Manager) and Brahma Swaroop Sharma (Society Manager) were appointed as a member of so called committee to conduct inquiry, but said committee has not been constituted as per clause 3 of the Human Resources Policy framed under the Sewa Niyam. It is