MADHYA PRADESH DUGDH MAHA SANGH Vs. RAKESH SHRIVASTAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved with the order dated 26.3.2002 passed by Joint Registrar Coop. Societies, Bhopal in Appeal No. 78-92/01, the appellant Dugdh Mahasangh has preferred Second Appeal u/s 78 (2) of M.P. Coop. 180 M.P. Dugdh Maha Sangh, Sahakari Maryadit v. Rakesh Shrivastavat 2006 Societies Act, 1960 (for short the Act).

(2.) THE material facts are that the respondent is in employment of the appellant Sangh. The date of birth of respondent in service-book was originally 1.10.1956. By over-writing the date of birth was changed to 1.10.1958 in the service book. On the allegation of manipulating and over- writing in the record in respect of date of birth domestic enquiry was instituted against the respondent. In enquiry the charges of interpolation was found proved. Consequent to it the appellant Sangh imposed the penalty of reducing him in the rank. The respondent filed a dispute u/s 55 (2) of the Act in the Court of Dy. Registrar Coop. Societies, Bhopal, seeking the relief to quash the order of punishment. The Court of Dy. Registrar vide order dated 31.3.2001 allowed the dispute of the respondent and set-aside the order of the appellant authority in respect of the penalty imposed on the respondent. The aforesaid order of Dy Registrar was challenged in the Court of Registrar Coop. Societies, M.P. Bhopal who made over the case to hear on merit in the Court of Joint Registrar. Bhopal. Vide order dated 26.3.2002 Court of Joint Registrar confirmed the order of Dy Registrar. Hence, this second appeal.

(3.) THE counsel for the appellant has assailed the findings of the Courts below on the ground of recording contradictory findings. It is pointed out that the trial Court in issue No. 4 has held that the enquiry was conducted as per rules. The first appellate Court has also confirmed the findings of the trial Court in respect of this issue. In view of the aforesaid back-ground it is argued that the Court below could not have interfered with the finding of the enquiry officer. This apart there is no perversity in the finding of the enquiry officer. It is also argued that the Courts below could not have interfered in the quantum of punishment.