KARAM CHAND Vs. ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR (C)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed a Salesman with respondent No. 4; vide resolution of the said respondent dated November 22,1989. It appears from the reply filed on behalf of respondent Nos. I to 3 that the meeting, in which the -resolution aforesaid was passed, was irregular and not held according to rules and accordingly a letter was addressed by respondent No. 3 to respondent No. 2 for cancellation of the proceedings of the said meeting. On account of the aforesaid letter, a show cause notice Annexure P-1 was issued by respondent No. 2 to the ex-managing committee members of respondent No. 4 but the aforesaid members refused to accept service of the notice. Thereafter, respondent No. 2 exercising powers of the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, cancelled the resolution dated November 12,1989 by exercising the powers conferred under Rule 80 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Rules, 1963. As a consequence of the resolution Annexure P-2 having been annulled the petitioner was dismissed from service, vide Annexure P3 dated October 19, 1990. Aggrieved against the order annexure P-3, the petitioner preferred a revision petition before Additional Registrar, Co- operative Societies, but the same was dismissed as not maintainable. The petitioner has approached this Court praying that Annexures P-2 and P-3 be quashed.

(2.) The only argument addressed before me by Mr. Amar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the notice Annexure P-1 should have been addressed to respondent No 4 or the Liquidator who was holding the charge of the said society and the service of notice on the ex-members of the managing committee, in fact, did not amount to compliance with the rules of natural justice.

(3.) After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that service of notice, vide Annexure P-1 on the ex-members of the committee was not sufficient compliance with the rules of natural justice as the resolution annexure P-2 had been passed by the Society and not by the individual members concerned., The notice for the annulment of the resolution dated 22.11.1989, therefore, should have been addressed to the Society, if in existence or to the Liquidator who was holding the charge as he alone, who having the custody of the record, could have justified the action of the committee before the Deputy Registrar, who passed the order Annexure P-2.