1

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

WPS No. 3097 of 2012

• Chhattisgarh Rajya Sahakari Vipran Sangh Maryadit, head

office Civil Lines, Raipur through Assistant Manager Legal.

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through- Minister Incharge, Co-operative

Department , DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG)

2. Neelmani Sarsinha, Ex-Junior Assistant, MP State Co-operative

Marketing Federation Limited, R/o Behind Rajkumar College,

near Member Body, Daganiya, Raipur (CG)

3. MP State Co-operative Marketing Federation Limited, through

its Secretary, Jahgirabad, Bhopal (MP)

4. Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Raipur, GE Road, Raipur.

---- Respondents

For Petitioner

: Mr. Ashsih Surana, Advocate

For Respondent No.1 & 4

: Mr. Sandeep Dubey, Dy. Advocate

General

For Respondent No.2

: Mr. Yogesh Pandey, Advocate

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Parth Prateem Sahu

Order on Board

8.3.2022

1. Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 30.4.2012

(Annexure P-1) passed in Revision Case No.78 (27)/2011 by

which respondent No.1 quashed orders dated 24.6.2011 &

16.9.2011 (Annexure P-7 & P-8); upheld the order dated

6.4.2010 (Annexure P-5A) passed by respondent No.4-Deputy

Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Raipur quashing order of

removal of respondent No.2 from service dated 14.2.1990, and

directed petitioner-employer to reinstate respondent No.2 in

2

service without back wages.

2. Facts of case, in brief, are that respondent No.2-employee was

initially engaged as 'Grader' in Madhya Pradesh State Co-

operative Marketing Federation. Subsequently, petitioner was

posted as 'Junior Assistant' in District Office Raipur with

petitioner. During posting of respondent No.2 as 'Junior

Assistant' and 'Godown In-charge' at Fertilizer Collection

Centre, Dhamtari, it was found that respondent No.2 has

committed certain financial irregularities. First information

report was lodged against him, upon completion of investigation

police filed charge sheet against respondent No.2. Department

also issued charge sheet, conducted inquiry against respondent

No.2. After conclusion of departmental inquiry, charges levelled

against respondent No.2 were found to be proved, therefore,

vide order dated 14.2.1990 penalty of removal from service was

imposed. In criminal proceeding respondent No.2 was acquitted

from the charges vide judgment dated 31.3.2000. Respondent

No.2 preferred departmental appeal against his removal from

service and also raised a dispute under the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947, which was not entertained in view of provisions

under Section 55 of the CG Co-operative Societies Act, 1960

(for short 'the Act of 1960'). Thereafter respondent No.2

submitted an application before respondent No.4 under Section

55 of the Act of 1960. Respondent No.4 considering that

respondent No.2 faced departmental inquiry and criminal

proceedings for same charges and he was acquitted from all

3

charges in criminal proceedings; allowed application filed under

Section 55 of the Act of 1960 vide order dated 6.4.2010

(Annexure P-5A), directed for reinstatement of respondent No.2

in service without back-wages. This order of respondent No.4

was put to challenge by petitioner-employer in an appeal under

Section 77 of the Act of 1960, which came to be allowed in part

and matter was remanded back to respondent No.4 for taking

decision afresh in accordance with relevant service rules

applicable to respondent No.2-employee. Order of remand was

challenged by respondent No.2 by filing second appeal under

Section 78 of the Act of 1960 which came to be dismissed by

order dated 16.9.2011 (Annexure P-8). Respondent No.2-

employee also filed revision challenging order passed in second

appeal, which was allowed vide order impugned upholding the

order dated 6.4.2010 (Annexure P-5A) passed by respondent

No.4.

3. Mr. Ashish Surana, learned counsel fo