DY. REGISTRAR, COOP. SOCIETIES Vs. BUNNI LAL CHAURASIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order of the High Court dated 5.09.2001 whereby the order passed by the learned Single Judge has been upset.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are as follows:

(3.) The Division Bench of the High Court upset the order passed by the learned Single Judge mainly on two grounds. Firstly, no notice of proposed punishment has been given to the respondent. This finding is demolished by notice dated 13.07.1993. From the aforesaid notice, it is clear that the respondent was put to notice as to why he should not be dismissed from service. It appears that the respondent did not give a reply to the aforesaid notice. Therefore, the first ground on which the Division Bench upset the order of the learned Single Judge is erroneous. The second ground on which the Division Bench upset the order of the learned Single Judge is that, u/s. 68 of the Act, there is no provision to order dismissal or removal of the respondent. While it is true that u/s. 68 of the Act, there is no such provision but the learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that, in fact, the order of dismissal was passed under Rg. 68 and not u/s. 68 of the Act. The learned counsel has also taken us to the provisions of Rg. 68 of the Cooperative Federal Authority (Business) Regulations, 1976. A reading of Rg. 68, which is annexed to the additional affidavit filed by the appellant, would clearly show that it empowers the authority to impose major punishment like dismissal, removal or reduction in rank. It appears from the facts and circumstances of this case that the authority was confused between Sec. 68 of the Act and Rg. 68. Be that as it may, a reading of the notice on proposed punishment dated 13.07.1993 clearly shows that the proposed punishment on the respondent appears to have been passed under Rg. 68 and not u/s. 68 of the Act, although the impugned order mentions Sec. 68 of the Act.