LAWS(GAU)-1993-2-4

RISHESWAR NEOG Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

Decided On February 01, 1993
RISHESWAR NEOG Appellant
V/S
STATE OF ASSAM Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order or decision removing him from his service made on 1. 7. 89.

(2.) Facts. The Salaguri Samabai Samity Limited (for short, "Society") is a registered co-operative society. The petitioner Shri Risheswar Neog was appointed as salesman of the Society on 30.7.75. Thereafter, on 30.12.87, by a resolution of the managing committee appointed the petitioner as secretary in the office of the Society on a salary. The petitioner was involved in Sibsagar PS Case No. 320 of 1987 under Section 7 (i) (A) of the Essential Commodities Act and therefore, the petitioner was placed under suspension by the managing committee of the Society under order dated 16.9.87. After the petitioner was discharged by the Sessions Judge Sibsagar on 19. 1.88, the suspension order was revoked on 29.3.88. But the petitioner was not allowed to resume his duty. Therefore, the petitioner filed Civil Rule No. 2042 of 1988 before this Court. This Court disposed of the petition on 15.3.89 directing the petitioner to join duty on or before 20.3.89. The President and the Secretary of the Society did not allow the petitioner to join duty and, therefore, Civil Original Contempt Application No, 57 of 1989 was filed and this Court on 2.5.89, issued notice to the contemners. A meeting of the Annual General Meeting was to be held on 19.5.89, and one of the agenda was to discuss about the petitioner and decision thereof. The petitioner thereafter filed Misc Case No. 8 of 1989. That Misc Case was disposed of by this Court on 16.5.89 with an observation that the Society should discuss the matter keeping in view the order passed by the court. The petitioner went to the Society but no action was taken by Society. The Contempt petition was also disposed on 27.6.88 by giving a warning Order. On 6.7.89, the petitioner received a letter dated 1.7.89 from the Society informing him that he had been removed from his services by the managing committee as per decision of the meeting held on 20.6.89 in compliance with the direction of the General Assembly held on 19.5.89. Hence this petition challenging the order of removal.

(3.) Mr. P. K. Baruah, learned counsel for the respondents, has contended that the present writ petition is not maintainable for the matter relates to enforcement of personal service or service contract.