MEWARAM BOHRE Vs. ZILA SAHAKARI KENDRIYA BANK MARYADIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order Annexure P-1 dated 17.11.2000 passed by the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Gwalior who by exercising powers conferred on him under section 77 of the M.P. Cooperative Societies Act has allowed the appeal filed by the respondent bank and has quashed the order dated 5.5.1997 Annexure P-20 passed by the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Society, Behind setting aside the order of dismissal from service of the petitioner and remanded the matter back to the Staff Committee for fresh enquiry and consideration.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner Shri Raghvendra Dixit has challenged the order passed by the Joint Registrar on various grounds. However his main ground of attack on the aforesaid order is that the Deputy Registrar after going through the entire records and after considering the statement of the respondent Bank and in particular the statement of witness, Shri Ramkumar Sharma has recorded a finding that a proper opportunity of defence in the enquiry was not given to the petitioner. This finding has been preferred with by the Joint Registrar arbitrarily without application of mind and in setting aside the order of the Deputy Registrar. Joint Registrar except for indicating the procedure that has been followed has not considered the record properly. It was emphasized by Shri Dixit that the order passed by the Joint Registrar requires to be quashed for want of application of mind.

(3.) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the records, I am of the considered view that there is much force in the contention raised by Shri Raghvendra Dixit, learned counsel for the petitioner to the effect that the Joint Registrar has passed a non-speaking order without application of mind, on perusal of the order passed by the Deputy Registrar as contained in Annexure P-20 it is seen that the Deputy Registrar has meticulously examined the records produced before him, photocopy of the enquiry proceedings so also after considering the statement of the Bank. Statement of Shri Ramkumar Sharma has indicated that enquiry was not conducted properly. Proper opportunity was not given to the petitioner and various reasons have been indicated in the order running to about 10 pages to emphasis that the procedure followed in the departmental enquiry was not proper. Thereafter he had remanded the matter back to the competent committee of the Bank for fresh consideration and decision within 30 days. This detailed and reasonable order have been interfered with by the Joint Registrar in practically a single page order consisting of only two paragraphs. In the first paragraph Joint Registrar has reproduced the fact with regard to action being taken and challenge to the same before the Deputy Registrar and thereafter in para two Joint Registrar has simply mentioned that he has gone through the records thereafter without referring to any specific ground raised to challenge the order passed by the Deputy Registrar has been quashed. In doing so it is the considered view of this Court that the Joint Registrar has not applied his mind properly. The order passed is not a speaking order and while discharging his statutory functions, while exercising powers u/s 77 of the Cooperative Societies Act, Joint Registrar is required to analyse the reasons given in the impugned order challenged before me and has to record his reasons to disagree from the same by cogent reasons in conformity with the materials available on record. By simply making a vague statement that procedure has been followed. Joint Registrar has not exercised his power in accordance with law.