VIPIN KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT, SADHAN SAHKARI SAMITI, BHAIRSOL, MAINPURI Vs. SECRETARY, SAHKARI SADHAN SAMITI LTD., BHAIRSOL, MAINPURI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against the order of termination dated 11.3.1995, passed by Secretary, Sahkari Sadhan Samiti Ltd., Bhalsroli, Mainpuri, Respondent No. 1.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts are that Sadhan Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Bhaisroli, Mainpuri (hereinafter referred to as the Samiti) is a primary society. The Petitioner was appointed as Accountant of the Samiti by a resolution passed on 1.9.1988 by the Committee of Management of the Samiti. The resolution indicates that the Petitioner was appointed as Accountant/Salesman on temporary basis. The papers regarding appointment of the Petitioner were sent to the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Mainpuri for approval. He granted approval on 26.12.1990. The Secretary of the Samiti wrote a letter to the Petitioner asking him to deposit Rs. 15,636 which was alleged to have been illegally withdrawn by him with a warning that if the amount is not paid, his services may be terminated. The Petitioner is alleged to have submitted a reply denying that he had illegally withdrawn any amount. On 11th March 1995, the Petitioner was Informed by the Secretary and the President of the Samiti that jinn accordance with the resolution of the Board of Directors in its meeting dated 11.3.1995, the services of the Petitioner as Accountant are terminated with effect from the same date and a month's salary was paid in advance. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Shri K. Ajit has challenged the order of termination on the following grounds:

(3.) Sri K.M. Mishra, learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the Society is a primary society and there is no statutory rule relating to the service conditions of Accountant/Salesman. The Registrar/Assistant Registrar had no power to issue any circular requiring any primary society to seek approval of an appointment or termination of service of an Accountant. The Petitioner was appointed on temporary basis and it was open to the Board of the Samiti to consider the conduct of the Petitioner and to take decision for his termination of service. It was denied that the resolution passed by the Samiti was male fide.