SANTOSH SHARMA Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With the consent of parties, the matter is finally heard. Present petition has been filed challenging the order dtd. 24/1/2019 passed by respondent No.4 whereby, the petitioners have been asked to deposit difference of the price of seeds within a period of three days, failing which, a direction for registration of FIR has been issued. It is submitted that the order impugned has been passed on the basis of the directions issued by Dy. Registrar on 8/9/2018 whereby, directing the Society Manager as well as In charge Manager of the Primary Agriculture Credit Co-operative Society Maryadit Khareh Tehsil Muhansa district Shivpuri for recovery of the aforesaid amount. On the basis of the letter annexure P/3 dtd. 8/9/2018, the impugned order has been issued by the Chief Executive Officer to the Branch Manager, Branch Shivpuri but in the aforesaid order, endorsement has been made that the aforesaid amount be deposited by the petitioners within a period of three working days, failing which, appropriate action will be taken against them. The petitioners being aggrieved by the aforesaid endorsement in the impugned order has filed this petition.

(2.) It is submitted that prior to making said endorsement, no show cause notice was issued to the petitioners to ascertain the fact that whether the petitioners are actually responsible for the loss being caused as the seeds were purchased from the agriculturists by the State Govt. through cooperative Societies and for that an order was issued by the District Collector on 24/4/2018. In the notice dtd. 8/9/2018, specific allegations were levied against the Manager of Seva Sahkari Samiti holding him responsible for the loss. It is submitted that on 12/3/2019, interim relief was granted by this court and execution of order dtd. 24/1/2019 was stayed. It is submitted that on 19/7/2019, FIR was got registered against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Sec. 409 of IPC at PS Rannod District Shivpuri at Crime No.0127 of 2019 which has been put to challenge by the petitioners by filing Misc. Cr.Case No.3147 of 2019. It is submitted that subsequent development has taken place that the petitioners services have been put to end by subsequent order dtd. 13/6/2019 passed by respondents which was communicated to the petitioners along with the letter dtd. 10/10/19. Termination order is dtd. 13/6/2019 but the same was communicated to the petitioners on 10/10/2019, hence, by way of amendment, the petitioners has put to challenge the aforesaid order and made certain amendments in the writ petition. The amendment application was allowed by this court vide order dtd. 21/10/2019. It is submitted that the petitioners themselves have filed an application/suit on 7/4/2019 for recovery of the loss before the competent authority which is clearly reflected from document annexure R/4-2. Counsel for the petitioners further drew attention of this court to the rules which are governing the services of the petitioners, copy of which is filed along with the petition as Annexure P/6. Part 6 of the aforesaid rules deals with the method and manner in which, departmental inquiry is to be conducted and the manner in which, the penalties are to be imposed. Clause 27 deals with the power of competent authority to impose penalty/punishment. In the case of Asstt. Manager i.e. like petitioners, competent authority is the Manager whereas, the impugned order has been passed by Chief Executive Officer, District Cooperative Central Bank Maryadit, Shivpuri. It is further pleaded that prior to terminating services of the petitioners, neither any show cause notice was issued nor any departmental inquiry was conducted as contemplated under the rules. It is submitted that the impugned orders have been passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice. He has prayed for quashment of the impugned order with further quashing of the termination order and for re-engagement of the petitioners.

(3.) Per contra, counsel for the State as well as counsel for the respondent No.4 have opposed the prayer denying contentions raised by the petitioners alleging that the impugned order has rightly been passed and same does not call for any interference in the present petition. It is submitted that several show notices were issued to the petitioners but they failed to respond to the aforesaid notices. He has drawn attention of this court to the return filed by respondent No.4. It is argued that the petitioners are having alternative and efficacious remedy of raising the dispute before Arbitrator. It is submitted that the agreement was signed by the parties themselves and as per para 16 of the agreement, remedy of arbitration has been provided. Petitioners are also prepared for arbitration proceedings but these facts have been concealed by the petitioners in this petition. It is further argued that no civil court or revenue court is having jurisdiction with respect to the dispute and the writ petition filed before this court is not maintainable. It is further submitted that the similar controversy has also been decided by this court in W.P.No.9011 of 2019 and the petition was disposed of with liberty to avail the alternative remedy available to them under M.P. Cooperative Societies Act. He has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.