DEO PUJAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a member of the Gladstone Lyall Employees' Industrial Co-operative Society Limited which is a registered Co-operative Society. The petitioner was also serving in the said Society as its employee. Annexure-A to the writ petition is a letter dated 19.4.82 issued to the petitioner by the General Manager of the said Co-operative Society informing him under the directions of the Board of Directors that he has been confirmed in the post of Works in-Charge and fitted in the scale of pay plus usual allowances of the Society with effect from 1.4.82 Annexure-B to the writ petition is a letter dated 18.5.87 issued to the petitioner on behalf of the Managing Committee that as per resolution adopted in the Annual General Meeting dated 8.5.87 and subsequently confirmed in the meeting of the Board of Directors held on 18.5.87 the petitioner would be promoted to the post of Factory Manager. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Factory Manager with effect from 1.1.87. He was further informed by a letter dated 22.5.87 which is Annexure-C to the writ petition that he would be entitled to get an increment of Rs. 300 with effect from 1.4.87 from rendering responsible service to the Society. Subsequently the Managing Committee of the said Co-operative Society by their letter dated 28.4.93 which is Annexure-F to the writ petition forwarded to the petitioner the extract of a resolution unanimously adopted in the Annual General Meeting of the Society held on 28.4.93. In that resolution of the Annual General Meeting held on 28.4.93 it was purportingly resolved unanimously that Sri Deopujan Singh ( the writ petitioner), Factory Manager, should not be continued any more for six enumerated grounds mentioned therein, It was also recorded in that resolution that the Society, therefore, decided to terminate the services of the petitioner with immediate effect and accordingly it was also decided to start a criminal case against him to recover the money which he failed to account for.

(2.) The petitioner in this writ petition has challenged the said resolution of termination of his services. As I have already mentioned, the said resolution mentions of six grounds for which the petitioner's services were terminated. Those grounds include various charges including defalcation anti-society activities etc. It is, however, not necessary for me to embark upon any enquiry as to whether those charges are substantiated or true. The fact remains that the petitioner's services were terminated by a resolution taken in an Annual General Meeting of the Society on certain grounds. The point of challenge before me is that the resolution of termination of the services of the petitioner is wholly bad in law because the petitioner was not earlier given any notice about those charges requiring him to show cause in the matter, nor was any enquiry held and even there was no agenda of the matter for the Annual General Meeting held on 28.4.93. Annexure-D to the writ petition is a copy of the notice issued by the Secretary of the Co-operative Society convening the 17th Annual General Meeting of the Society scheduled to be held on 28.4.93. In the agenda of the meeting there is no whisper that the A.G.M. (Annual General Meeting) will discuss any charge of misconduct against the petitioner, not to speak of mentioning the charges against the petitioner. It is evident, therefore, that this resolution for removing the petitioner from service was taken in the A.G.M without having any agenda over such a vital matter for that meeting which is itself a gross violation of the principles of natural justice as well as the principles of fair procedure in dealing with such a vital matter affecting the livelihood of an officer of the Society.

(3.) Nobody is appearing for the respondents/Co-operative Society Authorities. But it appears that the Co-operative Society Authorities, namely, the respondents Nos. 4 and 5 affirmed an affidavit-in-opposition and a copy of the same was also served upon the learned Advocate for the petitioner and the xerox copy of the same has been placed before me by the learned advocate for the petitioner. The affidavit-in-reply affirmed by the petitioner is also there on record. From the affidavit-in-opposition also it does not appear that any show-cause notice was earlier issued or served by or on behalf of the Co-operative Society upon the petitioner or that any proceeding regarding the alleged misconduct was started in any manner. In paragraph 9 of the affidavit-in-opposition it is stated that in terms of clause 43(1) any officer appointed by the General Meeting may be removed from his office by a resolution of a General Meeting. By-law 43(1) of the respondent/Co-operative Society, as now placed before me, provides that any officer appointed by the General Meeting may be removed from his office by a resolution of General Meeting specially convened for the purpose. This provision clearly shows that a General Meeting of the Co-operative Society for removing an officer has to be convened specially for that purpose. As we have seen, the General Meeting which was convened by the notice (Annexure-D to the writ petition) did not include any item of agenda regarding removal or misconduct of the petitioner and it rather contains several other items, as mentioned therein, wholly unconnected with the question of removal or misconduct of the petitioner.It is, therefore, evident that the meeting in which the resolution was taken for the removal of the petitioner for alleged misconduct was not at all convened for that purpose and, therefore, that resolution for removal of the petitioner which was taken in the said meeting without having any item of agenda relation to the same cannot at all be said to be in conformity with the bye-law 43(1) of the Bye-laws of the respondent/Co-operative Society. For this reason alone the resolution terminating the petitioner's services which was taken in the Annual General Meeting held on 28.4.93 has to be held wholly unlawful. The learned Advocate for the petitioner has also attracted my attention to rule 48 of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Rules, 1987 wherein the powers of the Board have been mentioned. Under that rule the Board of Directors of a Co-operative Society has the power to appoint, discharge or dismiss or to remove an employee of the Society, but it is also expressly provided therein that no employee of a Co-operative Society shall be dismissed or removed from service except after an enquiry in which he has been informed of the charges against him and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges, and it is further provided therein that where it is proposed after such enquiry to dismiss or remove the employee, he has to be given reasonable opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed. Patently in this case nothing of the sort was done. No enquiry was started against the petitioner and no notice of the charges was given to the petitioner, not to speak of giving him an opportunity of making representation against the proposed penalty of removal from service. That being so, the resolution of removal from service, which was suddenly taken in the Annual General Meeting cannot be sustained in law.