RAMAVTAR SHARMA Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has assailed the order dated 21/01/2019 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent no.3, whereby his services have been terminated.

(2.) The brief facts leading to filing of this case are that petitioner was appointed as a Society Manager in the establishment of respondent no.3. A show-cause notice was issued to him calling for reply as to certain financial irregularities to the tune of Rs.44,50,233.68/- and vide order dated 9/3/15, the petitioner was placed under suspension. In reply, the petitioner stated that all the alleged dues had been deposited by him long back on 25/4/2015 and 27/4/2015.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent no.1 is State and respondent no.2 is Principal Officer under section 3 of the M.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (for short "the Act"). In exercise of powers under section 55(1) of the Act, respondent no.2 has framed Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit Ke Sewayukton Ke (Niyojan, Nibandhan Tatha Karya Stithi) Seva Niyam (for short "the Seva Niyam") which have statutory force in view of law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Sewaram Vs. Board of Revenue (1983 RN 353). It is further submitted that the impugned order is absolutely without jurisdiction and the Seva Niyam have been given a go-by and the services of petitioner have been terminated arbitrarily. The respondents have also issued direction to lodge FIR against the petitioner and to file dispute for recovery. It is submitted that the impugned order could not have been passed without holding departmental enquiry, issuance of chargesheet and giving opportunity to lead evidence or to cross-examine the witnesses as provided under the Seva Niyam. Rule 2.21 of the Seva Niyam provides for constitution of Departmental Enquiry Board for inquiring into the charges of major misconduct of more than Rs. 10 lacs. The said Board comprises of three members and they are the competent Authority to submit report before the disciplinary Authority. The Departmental Enquiry is to be conducted as per the procedure, as contemplated under section 49 of the Seva Niyam. The respondents without following the procedure as prescribed under the Seva Niyam have terminated the services of the petitioner which amounts to violation of principles of natural justice and is against the settled tenets of service jurisprudence.