Dismissed

Om Prakash Sharma v. Adhyakash Kendriya Saha.Bank

Rajasthan HC10 Aug 2017CW/1760/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismissed a writ petition challenging an order removing the petitioner from service of a Cooperative Society after an enquiry found him guilty of embezzlement. The High Court held that the society's removal order was valid. The petitioner was absent; the court examined the merits based on the record.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed on merits, upholding the removal of the petitioner from service.

Om Prakash Sharma Vs Adhyakash Kendriya Saha.Bank — Cooperative Societies | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1760 / 2000

¶3

vkseizdk’k 'kekZ iq= Jh lq[knso 'kekZ] tkfr czkg~e.k mez 57 o"kZ O;olk;& dqN ugha] lsokeqDr O;oLFkkid] vVk xzke lsok lgdkjh lfefr fuoklh xzke /kkanqiqjk iksLV oj[ksMk rglhy o ftyk djkSyh ¼jkt0½

¶4

fo:)

¶5

1- v/;{k] lokbZ ek/kksiqj dsUnzh; lgdkjh cSad e;kZfnr lokbZek/kksiqj iz/kku dk;kZy;] dpgjh jksM] ekuVkmu] lokbZ ek/kksiqjA

¶6

2- vf/k’kk"kh vf/kdkjh] lokbZ ek/kksiqj dsUnzh; lgdkjh cSad e;kZfnr lokbZek/kksiqj iz/kku dk;kZy;] dpgjh jksM] ekuVkmu] lokbZ ek/kksiqjA

¶7

3- la;qDr jftLVªkj] lgdkjh lfefr;kW] Hkjriqj] [k.M HkjriqjA

¶8

--------foi{khx.k

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : None present.

¶10

For Respondent(s) : Mr. B.L. Awasti

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

¶12

Order

¶13

10/08/2017

¶14

On 28.06.2017 case was listed but no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner. It is stated that the counsel who was appearing for the petitioner earlier, has shifted to Jodhpur.

¶15

In the circumstances, the writ petition has been examined on merits. The petitioner has assailed the order of removal from service passed vide order dated 22.05.1999 wherein after conducting an enquiry and after arriving at conclusion by the Enquiry Officer of all the charges having been found to be proved and also having made available, the Copy of the enquiry report, the punishment of removal from service against the petitioner was passed.

¶16

(2 of 3)

¶17

[CW-1760/2000]

¶18

From the perusal of the record, it is seen that under Rule 74(2) of the Cooperative Societies Act proceedings were conducted by the Additional Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Sawai Madhopur who found his decision dated 15.12.1988 and decision dated 24.07.1998 found in of having embezzled amount of Rs.50181.30/- and 5352.00/- respectively. Directions were issued to the petitioner to deposit the said amount but the same was also no deposited. It is also revealed from the reply vide order dated 29.11.2000, the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Bharatpur also found in guilty of having embezzled an amount of Rs.55879/- and has directed him to deposit the said amount with interest @ 18%. Vide another order Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Karauli passed an order under Rule 74 on 21.09.2001 whereby he was found to have embezzled an amount of Rs.990/-.

¶19

No rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner in relation to the said orders. Service Rules have been framed for the employees working in the Cooperative Banks and Service Rule 21 reads as under:-

¶20

”21- fu;ksZX;rk,W %& dksbZ Hkh deZpkjh vius in ij cuk ugha jgsxk] ;fn%&

¶21

1- mlds fo:) jktLFkku] lgdkjh lkslkbVh vf/kfu;e] 2001 dh /kkjk 57 esa fu.kZ; ikfjr dj fn;k x;k gks rFkk mDr fu.kZ; dks fdlh vU; U;k;ky; esa Lfkfxr ugha fd;k gksA ,slh fLFkfr esa lacaf/kr O;oLFkkid@lgk;d O;oLFkkid@vU; deZpkjh dks fu/kZfjr vuq’kklukRed izfØ;k viukrs gq, rqjUr lsokeqDr dj fn;k tkosxkA

¶22

2- mlds }kjk jktLFkku lgdkjh lkslkbVh fu;e] 2003 ds fu;e 39 dk mYya?ku fd;k x;k gksA

¶23

3- og jktLFkku lgdkjh lkslkbVh vf/kfu;e 2001 dh /kkjk 109 esa of.kZr vijk/kksa esa ls fdlh vijk/k ds fy, nks"kh fl} gks x;k gksA 4- og fdlh jktuhfrd ny ls laca/k j[krk gks vFkok fdlh jktuhfrd xfrfof/k esa Hkkx ysrk gksA deZpkjh }kjk fdlh laLFkk]

¶24

(3 of 3)

¶25

[CW-1760/2000]

¶26

Lfkkuh; fudk;] xzke iapk;r] uxj ifj"kn] uxj fodkl] uxj ikfydk] fo/kkulHkk vFkok laln dk pquko yM+us ls iwoZ in R;kx djuk gksxkA ,slk R;kxi= ,d ekg iwoZ lfefr ds v/;{k dks izLrqr fd;k tkuk vko’;d gksxk rFkk mlds Lohdkj gksus ij gh og mDr pqukoksa esa Hkkx ys ldsxkA

¶27

5- LFkkukUrj.k %& lfefr ds deZpkjh dk fdlh nwljh lfefr esa LfkkukUrj.k ugha fd;k tk ldsxk] fdUrq fo’ks"k ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa cSad ds dk;Z{ks= ds vUrxZr vkus okyh lacaf/kr lfefr;ksa ds deZpkfj;ksa ds Lo;a ds vkosnu ij nksuksa lfefr;ksa dh izcU/kdkfj.kh }kjk bl vk’; dk izLrko ikfjr fd;s tkus ,oa bldk vuqeksnu foÙknkrk cSad }kjk gksus ij deZpkfj;ksa dk lger vof/k gsrq ewy laLFkk esa fy;u jgrs gq, ikjLifjd LfkkukUrj.k gks ldsxkA ;fn fdUgha deZpkfj;ksa }kjk lacaf/kr fu;ksDrk lfefr ds foÙknkrk cSad ds dk;Z{ks= ls ckgj] fdUrq jktLFkku dh lhekvksa esa fLFkr vU; iSDl@ySEil esa izfrfu;qfDr ds :Ik esa LfkkukUrj.k gsrq vkosnu fd;k tkrk gS rks nksuksa lfefr;ksa dh izcU/kdkfj.kh }kjk mDr vk’k; dk izLrko ikfjr gksus ,oa lacaf/kr ftyksa dh p;u lfefr;ksa dk vuqeksnu izkIr gksus ds mijkUr ikjLifjd LfkkukUrj.k gks ldsxkA bl rjg ds vkns’k p;u lfefr } kjk tkjh fd;s tkosaxs rFkk nksuksa dh lgefr dh vof/k rd gh izHkkoh jgsaxsaA”

¶28

In view of the said Rule, the petitioner could not have been continued in service. The action of the respondent therefore cannot be faulted, and is upheld.

¶29

The writ petition being devoid of merits is dismissed.

¶30

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA)J.

¶31

M.Meena/2

Om Prakash Sharma v. Adhyakash Kendriya Saha.Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Om Prakash Sharma v. Adhyakash Kendriya Saha.Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kedar Lal Sen Vs Secretary Gramin Vikas and Panch

Rakesh @ Rajesh Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Poonam Nirjar Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Billu @ Shubhal Burman Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Inder Singh Vs State of Raj Anr.

Anis Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp