KHEMCHAND PARASAR Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HE is heard on admission. Petitioner an employee of District Cooperative Central Bank filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution against his suspension order.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that against a FIR, he filed W.P. No. 1207/2012, in which this Court passed interim relief that no coercive action be taken against the petitioner. By placing reliance on Annexure -P/1, it is submitted that one of the reason for placing the petitioner under suspension is lodging of the said FIR. Shri B.M. Patel submits that since an interim relief is passed by this Court and coercive action is prohibited, suspension order could not have been passed.

(3.) PETITIONER is an employee of cooperative society. He has a statutory, efficacious and alternative remedy under the provisions of M.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 to assail the aforesaid order. Petitioner has not chosen to demonstrate/plead in the petition as to how this writ petition is maintainable against the Cooperative Society. The petitioner was required to plead and place the material to show the element of control of the Government i.e. administrative and financial on the respondent -society. The administrative domination and control of the Government should have been pleaded by the petitioner to bring the respondents within the ambit of Article 12 of the Constitution. A special bench (5 judges) of this Court in, 2007 (3) M.P.L.J. 594 [M.P. State Co -operative Dairy Federation and others Vs. Madan Lal Chourasia] held as under: