ORDER

1. The present petition has been filed challenging the suspension order Annexure P/9 dated 13.6.2024, alleged to be issued under instructions of the Registrar, Cooperative societies of Madhya Pradesh, vide Annexure P-8 dated 12.6.2024. The petitioner is working on the substantive post of Manager (Accounts), in District Central Cooperative Bank, Chhatarpur (hereinafter referred to as “Bank”).

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order Annxure P/9 has been passed in colourable exercise of powers because the order though is signed by the CEO of the Bank under authority of the Staff SubCommittee, but from perusal of the letter Annexure P-8 it is evident that the Registrar, Cooperative Societies has issued instructions for the same and thus, the order has been issued under instructions and dictate of a third authority.

3. The learned counsel further submitted that the matter alleged against the petitioner relates to irregularities in appointment of Society Managers, however, the said ground is not made out for the reason that the Society Managers who were recruited in the process in which irregularity is alleged, have already been granted stay by this Court in various petitions, including WP No.16704/2024. It was further contended that the matter was enquired twice over, once by the Joint Registrar vide Annexure P/3 dated 24.2.2023 and again by the Deputy Registrar vide Annexure P/4 dated 29.5.2023. On both the occasions, no irregularities were found by the concerned authority. However, thereafter again vide Annexure P/5, fresh enquiry was ordered by the Registrar and this report seems to be against the petitioner on basis of which he has been suspended. Thus, repeated reports were called until the petitioner was held to be at fault and an excuse to take action against the petitioner was being created by these repeated enquiries.

4. Per contra, it was argued by learned counsel for the caveator that all these enquiries are merely preliminary enquiries. Now a disciplinary action against the petitioner is being contemplated and he has been suspended in such contemplation and a regular departmental enquiry would ensue against the petitioner. Suspension does not amount to punishment. Various irregularities have been found in the recruitment of Society Managers and therefore, the petitioner has been placed under suspension under orders of the Staff Sub-Committee and the Registrar had merely asked the Bank to take action as per enquiry, and did not direct the Bank to suspend the petitioner.

5. Heard.

6. The contention that in repeated enquiries, nothing was found against the petitioner, is taken up first. It is evident that the issues raised by the petitioner in this regard are factual, because in both the preliminary enquiry reports Annexures No.P/3 and P/4, different aspects have been considered and it is not clear that subsequently on which aspect fault has been found in the matter in the subsequent enquiry got carried out in the year 2024. It is important to note here that the enquiry reports are prior to issuance of the appointment orders that seem to be issued in July 2023. The subsequent enquiry report of year 2024 is not placed on record by the petitioner. Now what was the exact irregularity found in the subsequent enquiry and whether it was already taken note in the earlier enquiries, cannot be commented upon at this stage, otherwise it may prejudice the petitioner or the employer-Bank in the regular departmental enquiry.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner fairly admitted that the suspension order has been issued as per approval of the Staff Sub-Committee which is the competent authority being Bank Management in terms of clause 2.8 of the service regulations and further that the Bank Management is the competent authority to suspend the petitioner in terms of clause 52.1.1 of the service regulations and is also the disciplinary authority, and there is no quarrel as to that. However, the order is bad in law