SHIV LAL THAKUR Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have filed this writ petition against the show -cause -notice (Annexure -PK) issued to them by the Registrar, Co -operative Societies (Respondent No. 2) and the consequential order (Annexure -PV) removing them from the Board of Directors of the Himachal Pradesh State Co -operative Bank (Respondent No. 4). The petitioners have also prayed for consequential relief flowing from the quashing of these orders.

(2.) IT is undisputed before me that the petitioners are the Directors of respondent No. 4, H.P. State Co -operative Bank Limited, constituted, incorporated and formed under the provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Co -operative Societies Act, 1968, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). Show -cause -notice (Annexure -PK) dated 5th February, 2008 was issued to the petitioners by the Registrar, respondent No. 2, on various grounds set out therein. The basis of the notice was the two audit reports for the financial years 2005 -2006 and 2006 -2007. Statutory inspection of the Bank for the year 2005 -2006 was conducted by the National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development ('NABARD' for short) under Section 35(6) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. The petitioners, replied vide Annexure -PL stating therein the reasons for which the notice was bad and no action could be taken against them. They inter alia asked for the reply filed by the Chief General Manager, NABARD who is also a Member of the Board of Directors of respondent No. 4 and that of the other Members, as the entire Board was sought to be implicated and the shortcomings in the statutory report have to be explained or rectified with the consensus of all the Directors.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel appearing for the petitioners has challenged the issuance of Annexure -PK and its rejection on a number of grounds by stating that specific charges attributable to each Member have not been mentioned and it has been issued in a pre -determined manner leaving very little for determination. The petitioners contend the violation of the Rule of audi alteram parterm and submit that the show -cause notice has concluded about the guilt of the petitioners and all other proceedings subsequent to that are a sham and mere pretence of compliance to the principles of Natural Justice and the statutory provisions of the Act.