CHANDRAPRAKASH Vs. M P RAJYA SAHAKARI BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a dismissed employee of respondent No. 1, feels aggrieved by the order of respondent-Board of Revenue dated 21-12-1982 (Annexure S) and seeks a writ of certiorarl for quashing the same by filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The respondent No. 1 is a Society registered under the provisions of M. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), and the petitioner was, at the relevant time, employed as a Sub-Accountant-cum-Cashier at their Rampur Branch in the City of Jabalpur. It is alleged against him that on 18-11-1974, when the closing cash balance was verified by the Agent of the Branch, 31 hundred rupee notes were found short in two bundles. It is also alleged that on the slips pasted over the bundles, false number of notes contained in the bundles were written. It, however, appears that the cash was made good and the cash book closed. On 27-1-1975, i. e., after little over 1-1/2 months, the petitioner was placed under suspension and served with a charge-sheet alleging 'temporary misappropriation and seeking his explanation. The petitioner submitted his explanation, after which a departmental enquiry was held in which he was found guilty of the charge of temporary misappropriation of Rs. 3100/-. Thereafter, by an order dated 19-5-1975 (Annexure-H), the petitioner was dismissed from employment. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Managing Committee, which was dismissed on 27-10-1975 (Annexure J). The petitioner, therefore, moved the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, under Section 55 (2) of the Act, raising a dispute and challenging the legality and validity of his dismissal. The aforesaid dispute was transferred to the Deputy Registrar for adjudication. The respondent-Deputy Registrar, by his order dated 11-3-1981 (Annexure-Q), held that the enquiry conducted against the petitioner suffered from serious illegalities and could not form the basis of his termination. The Deputy Registrar further examined the evidence on record as to ascertain if the charge levelled against the petitioner can be said to have been proved and came to the conclusion that the evidence was not sufficient to clearly hold the petitioner guilty. In the opinion of the Deputy Registrar, a serious charge like temporary misappropriation should be proved clearly and exclude all doubts about it. The Deputy Registrar, therefore, set aside the order and directed re-instatement of the petitioner with all benefits. The respondent-Board, therefore, preferred an appeal against the order of Deputy Registrar before the Additional Registrar Co-operative Societies. The Additional Registrar, by nil order dated 31-12-1981 (Annexure-R), agreed with the Deputy Registrar that the domestic enquiry was illegal. The Additional Registrar re-examined the evidence on record to ascertain if the petitioner could be held guilty of the charge. According to the Additional Registrar, there was no direct evidence to prove that the petitioner has done anything in the matter. According to him, the circumstantial evidence also did not point to the guilt of the petitioner. According to the Additional Registrar, the entire case against the petitioner was based on evidence of two witnesses whose testimony itself is doubtful. It, therefore, held that the charge against the petitioner was not proved. The order of the Deputy Registrar was, therefore, upheld.

(3.) That the respondent-Bank led a second appeal before the respondent Board of Revenue under Section 77 (2) of the Act challenging the legality of the order passed by the Deputy Registrar and the Additional Registrar. The said appeal has been allowed by the impugned order dated 21-12-1982 (Annexure-S) by holding that the respondents-Deputy Registrar and Additional Registrar had no jurisdiction to order re-instatement of the petitioner. On merits, the respondent-Board held that it was not necessary to insist upon direct evidence for proving the charge against the petitioner and even circumstantial evidence was sufficient. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in J. D. Jain v. Management, State Bank of India, [AIR 1982 SC 673], to support this view. In this view of the matter, the appeal was allowed and the order of dismissal upheld. It is this order which is impugned in the present writ petition.