Sewa Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Umariya Vs Lalaram Chandrakar

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:11333-DB

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WA No. 162 of 2025

¶6

1 - Sewa Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Umariya Registration No.-372, Branch- Dadhi, District -Bemetara, Through Its Prescribed Authority/ Prescribed Officer Mohit Sahu S/o Dhuru Sahu, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Village- Umariya, Post- Kanera, District - Bemetara (C.G.)

¶7

2 - Zila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit Durg Through Its Chief Executive Officer Surendra Kumar Joshi S/o Late Mohan Das Joshi, Aged About 61 Years, Office At In Front Of District Hospital, G.E. Road, Durg, District- Durg (C.G.)

¶8

... Petitioner(s)

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - Lalaram Chandrakar S/o Shri Shatruhan Lal Chandrakar Aged About 34 Years R/o Village- Pendrai, District - Bemetara, Chhattisgarh,

¶11

2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Co-Operative, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶12

3 - Registrar Co-Operative Societies Chhattisgarh, Block-3, Second And Third Floor, Indravati Bhavan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶13

4 - Divisional Joint Registrar Co-Operative Societies, Durg Division, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶14

5 - Deputy Registrar Co-Operative Societies, Bemetara, District- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh

¶15

... Respondent(s)

¶16

2

¶17

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tarun Dasena, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate. For Respondent No. 1.: Mr. Animesh Tiwari, Advocate.

¶18

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶19

Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board

¶20

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 07/03/2025

¶21

1 . Heard Mr. Tarun Dansena, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Govt. Advocate, appearing for the respondent/State, Mr. Animesh Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1.

¶22

The present writ appeal has been filed by the writ appellant who was the respondent No. 4 in the writ petition, against the impugned order dated 23.01.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in WPS No. 347/2025 whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner was allowed and the impugned order dated 21.02.2024 is quashed.

¶23

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed as peon in the respondent department on 28.12.2010. Subsequently he was promoted to the post of Assistant Society Manager. During the general inspection of the society, Umaria conducted by the team of the Deputy Register Cooperative Society, Bemetara certain irregularities have been found with respect to the issuance of the fake Kisan Credit Cards (KCC) in the name of farmers and transferred Rs. 9,46,000/- in his personal bank account. Since the writ petitioner had deposited the said amount to the bank considering the said deposition as an admission by the writ petitioner, he was suspended from his service vide order dated 21.02.2024 with immediate effect. The said order dated 21.02.2024 was challenged by the writ petitioner and after hearing the parties the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner

¶24

3

¶25

was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide its order dated 23.01.2025 and the same was quashed.

¶26

The said order dated 23.01.2025 is under challenge in the present writ appeal filed by the respondent No. 4 of the writ petitioner/Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Umariya and Zila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Mariyadit, Durg.

¶27

Learned counsel for the writ appellant would submit that before passing the order dated 21.02.2024 an inquiry was conducted by the Officer of the Zila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Mariyadit, Durg and thereafter notice was issued to the writ petitioner respondent No.1. In reply to the notice the writ petitioner had admitted his guilt and only thereafter the order dated 21.02.2024 has been issued. Looking to the huge loss to the society the writ petitioner cannot be allowed to continue in is post and by quashing of the impugned order dated 21.02.2024 he was again joined his service which further creates complications and thus the impugned order passed by learned Single Judge cannot be sustained. The opportunity to file reply have also not been provided to the writ appellant and the same has been allowed at motion stage itself. Therefore, the impugned order may be set aside and the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner may also be dismissed.

¶28

Opposing the submissions made by learned counsel for the writ appellant learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1/writ petitioner would supported the impugned order and have submitted that the learned Single bench after adverting the entire facts and circumstances of the case as well as law applicable had passed the impugned order which is absolutely justified and needs no interference.

¶29

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the writ petition.

¶30

From perusal of the documents annexed with the writ petition and order

¶31

4

¶32

passed by learned Single Judge, it reflects that the learned Single Judge has considered that Rules 17 of the Service Rules of Primary Krishi Sakh Sahkari Society Niyam 2018, have not been followed and the impugned order dated 21.02.2024 has been passed without following the Rule 17 of the said Rules 2018. The Rule 17 of the Rules 2018 is necessary to reproduce herein:

¶33

न�यम ि 17 संसथा क ् कम�चारी का न े े �लंब� ि :-

¶34

"1. कम�चारी की जि�सके नि�रु्ቍ गंभीर दुराचरण के लिलये काय � ाही की �ा रही हो सोसायटी के बो्ቑ� ्ቛारा नि�ण�य पारिरत कर संभागीय संयु्ሹ �य्ቦी पू�ा � ुमतित से नि�लंनिबत निकया �ा सकेगा। ऐसा नि�लंब� आदेश लिललि/त रूप में होगा और कम�चारी को व्यनि्ሹगत रूप से या पं�ीकृत ्ቑाक ्ቛारा निदया �ायेगा। 2. कम�चारी को नि�लंब� अ�ति6 में नि��ा�ह भ्ቈे के रूप में नि�ति8त �ेत� के आ6े के बराबर नि�लंब� भ्ቈे का अति6कार होगा और यह निब�ा स्ቌम अति6कारी की लिललि/त अ�ुमतित के मुख्यालय �हीं छो्ቑेगा। नि�लंब� अ�ति6 में कम�चारी को निकसी भी ्ቚकार की छु्ሾी �हीं दी �ा�ेगी �ह �ैसे ही और �ब भी कहीं �ाएगा, अप�ी अ�ुपቝኌस्थतित की सूच�ा स्ቌम अति6कारी को या उसके ्ቛारा अति6कृत निकसी व्यनि्ሹ को देगा

¶35

नि�लंब� अ�ति6 ती� माह से अति6क �हीं होगी, नि�लंब� अ�ति6 संचालक मण ् ल के अ�ुमोद� से बढ़ाई �ा सकती है परन्तु यह नि�स्तारिरत अ�ति6 छ: माह से अति6क �हीं होगी। िሗकतु �ांच अनि��ाय� रूप से ती� माह के भीतर कर ली �ाये। यनिद �ांच कर�े पर कम�चारी अंशतः या पूण�त: दोषी पाया �ाये ही उसे नि�यम अ�ुसार दण ् निदया �ा सकेगा और यह नि�लंब� अ�ति6 में निदये गये पाते को छोड़कर अन्य निकसी भी ्ቚकार के �ेत� का अति6कारी �हीं होगा।"

¶36

From the Rule 17 of the Rules 2018, further reflects that the period of suspension should not be more than 3 months which can be extended upto 6 month with prior approval of the Board of Directors but in any case it cannot be beyond the period of 6 months and all the inquires should be completed within 3 months. In the present case also the writ petitioner was suspended vide order dated 21.02.2024 and his suspension cannot be permitted beyond the period of 3 months or beyond the period of 6 months on prior approval of the Board of Directors but the

¶37

5

¶38

suspension of the petitioner is continued beyond the period of 3 months as also beyond the period of 6 months.

¶39

In the present case the period of suspension is crossed the maximum limit of period prescribed under Rule 17 of the Rules 2018 and after considering the Rules of 2018 as also the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition and the impugned order dated 21.02.2024 is quashed, in which we do not find any palpable infirmity which warrants interference in the writ appeal. While passing the impugned order the learned Single Judge has also considered the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India (2015) 7 SCC 291 and has quashed the impugned order dated 21.02.2024 in which we do not find any good ground to interfere in the matter.

¶40

11. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed.

¶41

Sd/Sd/-

¶42

(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal)	(Ramesh Sinha)
Judge	Chief Justice

¶43

Alok

¶44

Digitally signed by ALOK ALOK SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.03.18 10:51:43 +0530

Sewa Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Umariya v. Lalaram Chandrakar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sewa Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Umariya v. Lalaram Chandrakar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gayalal Sharma (Dead) Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Radheshyam Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mo. Meraj Khan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Pankaj Loniya

H.R. Yadav ( Petitioner in Person) Vs Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs

Govardhan Das Mahilang Vs State of Chhattisgarh