ASHOK KUMAR Vs. M P STATE COOPERATIVE OILSEED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved of the orders dated 20.9.1999 passed by the Addl. Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Bhopal in appeal case No. 77 -122/99, the appellant has preferred this second appeal.

(2.) BRIEF facts giving rise to this appeal are that the appellant was appointed in the respondent society on 16.7.1987 as Apprentice (Extension Assistant) on probation of two years. As per orders dated 4.2.1990 the probation period of the appellant was further extended by the respondent upto 9.4.1991. His services have been terminated w.e.f. 27.4.1991. Against this termination order he filed a dispute case under section 55 (2) read with Section 64 of the M.P. Cooperative Societies Act, for short hereinafter referred to as Act, before the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Bhopal, who transferred the same to Dy Registrar, Bhopal. Dy Registrar after framing issues recorded evidence of the parties and after hearing them passed his order of termination passed by the respondent, Respondent preferred first appeal before the Addl. Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Bhopal, who as per his impugned order set aside the order of the Dy Registrar. Now the appellant has filed this second appeal on the ground that the learned Addl. Registrar has committed error of law in admitting the time barred appeal for hearing. Respondent did not assign any sufficient reason for condonation of delay in its appeal. This appeal should have been dismissed on the ground that it is time barred. Second ground of attack is that the termination order of the appellant is punitive and stigmatic, passed in violation of article 311 (2) of Constitution of India. No any enquiry was held against the appellant about his alleged mis -conduct and therefore, the impugned orders of termination is illegal and vitiated. 1

(3.) LEARNED appellant counsel has neither challenged the validity of the extension of probation period of the appellant, which was extended upto 9.4.1991, as per order of respondent dated 4.12.1990. He has also not raised this contention that after 9.4.1991 the appellant should be deemed to have acquired the status of permanent employee. In this way this aspect of the matter needs no consideration in this appeal. Further, he has not agitated and raised this question that the appeal before the learned Addl. Registrar was time barred and could not have been admitted for final hearing because the respondent has not assigned sufficient cause for condonation of delay. Although the appellant has pleaded in the memo of second appeal that the time barred appeal could not be admitted for final hearing and the Addl. Registrar has committed error of law in admitting the same. Since this point has not been raised before me during the final hearing of this appeal, this question also needs no consideration. It has been held by the High Court in 1986 RN 39 (Sheolal v. Board of Revenue and others) that no observations on a matters which was not debated before the Court can be made on such matters, because the opposite party will have no opportunity to make its submission.