NANDKUMAR KUSHWAHA Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner an employee of the District Co- operative Central Bank Limited, Seoni/respondent No. 4 aggrieved of the order dated 27-4-1984 (Annexure-N) passed by the Board of Revenue in Appeal No. 14-2/84 preferred against the order dated 1-6-1983 (Annexure-L) passed in appeal No. 77/17 of 1982 by the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Jabalpur has filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) Facts giving rise to this petition are these. The petitioner was working as a salesman who was transferred vide order dated 24-8-1976 (Annexure-A) from Ghansore Consumer Store to Ugli Consumer Store. The petitioner did not join in compliance of the order of transfer at Ugli hence an order was passed on 19-10-1976 (Annexure-C) directing the petitioner to join within seven days failing which he will face action, but, inspite of this the petitioner did not join. Therefore, an order dated 29-10-1976 (Annexure-D) was passed terminating the services of the petitioner from the date of the order of transfer, i,e., 24-8-1976. On the representation of the petitioner the order Annexure-D was withdrawn and the petitioner was asked to join his duties as sales-man at Pandya Chhapar. The petitioner after joining his duties on 30-12-1976 applied for leave from 31st December, 1976 till 2-1-1977 with permission to leave headquarters for bringing his luggage which was granted. The petitioner after the expiry of leave so granted did not join and remained continuously absent, hence the respondent No. 4 terminated his service vide order dated 15-4-1977 (Annexure-H). The petitioner raised a dispute under Section 55 (2) of the M.P. Co- operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short 'the Act') before the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Seoni, which was contested by the respondent No. 4. After appreciation of evidence the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies dismissed the claim in dispute vide order dated 3-3-1982 (Annexure-J). Aggrieved of that the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 77 of the Act before the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Jabalpur. The Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies held that as the act of the petitioner amounts to misconduct under Rule 43 of the M.P. Sahakari Kendriya Bank Karmachari Tatha Karya Sthiti Niyam, 1965 (for short 'the Rules') hence services of the petitioner could only be terminated under Rule 44 (1) of the Rules after following the procedure as laid down in Rule 45 (3) which was not followed, therefore, set aside the order of termination and directed re-instatement without back wages with liberty to respondent No. 4 to proceed against the petitioner for the misconduct committed by the petitioner in accordance with the Rules. The respondent No. 4 did not challenge the order of re-instatement. However, the petitioner in pursuance of the order of re-instatement did not join his duties and preferred a second appeal under Section 77 (2) of the Act before the Board of Revenue. As the petitioner did not join his duties, the respondent No. 4 issued a letter dated 5-7-1983 (Annexure R-4) directing the petitioner to join his duties at Kan- haiwada. On that the petitioner made a representation on 13th July, 1983 (Annexure R-5) that he may not be asked to deposit security amount. The representation of the petitioner was accepted, therefore, another letter dated 26-7-1983 (Annexure R-6) was issued directing the petitioner to join his duties without furnishing security, but, inspite of that, the petitioner did not join.

(3.) Meanwhile, the Board of Revenue dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and affirmed the order of Joint Registrar, Co- operative Societies passed in appeal observing that it was the petitioner who absented himself after the expiry of leave, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for back wages on the principle of 'no work no pay'. The respondent No. 4 after the order of the Board of Revenue issued another letter dated 18-7-1984 (Annexure R-7) asking the petitioner to join his duties within seven days, but, inspite of this the petitioner did not report for duty and made a grievance vide letter dated 25-7-1984 (Annexure R-8)that he be allowed to join not as salesman but as Samiti Sevak. The respondent bank vide letter dated 29-8-1984 (Annexure R-9) made the position clear that as he was working as salesman vide order dated 6-5-1975 on fixed pay and his services were terminated as such, therefore, he should join within seven days his duty as salesman, but, again the petitioner did not join, therefore, another letter dated 12-11-1984 (Annexure R-10) was sent to the petitioner to join his duties within a week failing which it would be deemed that the petitioner is not interested in his re-inslatement and has abandoned his employment.