JUDGMENT :

VINAY SARAF, J.

1. In present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has challenged legality and validity of impugned order dated 2-1-2018 issued by Dy. Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Sagar, by which it was directed to President/Manager of Primarily Agriculture Credit Co-operative Society Limited to cancel the appointment of petitioner and report the same.

2. Learned counsel for petitioner assailed order of Dy. Registrar and consequential order dated 10-1-2018 issued by President, whereby the service of petitioner was terminated mainly on the ground that as per the service rules, the competent authority to take decision against petitioner is Manager of the society and Dy. Registrar had no authority, jurisdiction or competence to take any decision or issue any direction to Society for cancellation of appointment order of petitioner. It is also submitted that service rules were not followed in the decision making process and therefore, order is liable to be quashed. He relied on the following orders passed by Co-ordinate Benches.

3. The relevant portion of the order passed in W.P. No. 7088/2021 decided on 6-12-2023, Komal Prasad Basene vs. State of M.P. and others, are extracted herein-below:

“2. The petitioners, who are working as Accountants, Assistants Clerks and Choukidars are aggrieved by the similar orders passed by the Administrator and communicated by Manager. One such order dated 28-3-2018 (Annexure P-1) shows that pursuant to a decision by Administrator, the Manager has decided to terminate the services of the petitioners. This order is called in question on twin grounds:

(a) As per the Rule 27 of the Services Rules filed by the respondent Nos. 3 and 4, the competent authority to terminate the services of Accountants is Board of Directors, whereas for remaining petitioners it is Manager. The Manager is very much available, which is clear from the impugned order dated 28-3-2018 (Annexure P-1), which is communicated by Manager and, therefore, the impugned order is passed by an incompetent authority. In that event, in the light of judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and others, (1998) 8 SCC 1, the petitioners may not be relegated to avail the alternative remedy.

(b) As per Rule 28 of the said rules, punishment can be imposed only after holding an enquiry and in the instant case without holding any enquiry punishment is passed.

3. Shri Ritweek Parashar, learned Government Advocate for the State and Shri Pravesh Naveriya, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 supported the impugned order but could not substantiate that decision to terminate the petitioners was taken after holding enquiry and by competent authority, i.e. the Manager. Instead, impugned order dated 28-3-2018 (Annexure P-1) is only communicated by the Manager, whereas decision is taken by the Administrator. There is no material on record to show whether any fulfledged enquiry as contemplated in the Rules was conducted.

4. Accordingly, all the impugned orders are set aside. Liberty is reserved to the respondents to proceed against the petitioners in accordance with law.”

Learned counsel for the petitioner further relied upon the order passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 6965/2023 on 11-4-2023 in the matter of Khet Singh Lodhi vs. State of M.P. and others, 2023 MPLJ Online 56 whereby in the similar circumstances, the co-ordinate Bench has stayed the operation of the impugned order. The relevant part of the order is read as under:

“By the instant petition, petitioner is challenging the order of his termination. He relied upon the service rules of the society filed as Annexure-P-2 in which Manager (Prabandhak) has been prescribed as a competent authority to take appropriate action imposing minor and major punishment against salesman and as such any punishment imposed by other than the competent authority according to him is illegal.