CHAIRMAN PRESIDENT NATIONAL CO Vs. BIBHUTI BHUSHAN SINHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Letters Patent Appeals arise out of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. Nos. 7042 of 1995 and 9940 of 1996 questioning the orders passed by the President of National Co-operative Consumers' Federation of India Ltd. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 on the charge of defalcation of money was show caused, charges were framed, served and enquiry was held where both the re-spondents were held responsible for defalcation of money totaling Rs. 25,000/- by the enquiry officer. The President exercising power under Regulation 33(d) of the Bye-laws of the Federation passed the order of dismissal which has been questioned in the writ jurisdiction case. Before the learned Single Judge an objection was raised by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that the disciplinary authority in the above case is the Managing Director of the Federation. The President is the appellate authority and he cannot act as a disciplinary authority. The President being appellate authority had chosen to pass the order of dismissal which has been impugned in the writ proceeding invoking powers under Regulation 33(d) of the Bye-laws.

(2.) It is contended that unless the President feels that there is situation of emergency arisen which has been prescribed under Regulation 33(d) of the Bye-laws, the President cannot exercise power for proper adjudication with regard to the situation of emergency. It has been contended that except indicating in a routine manner the President has passed the order in the memo without following the principle of natural justice. An objection has been taken before the learned Single Judge with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition against the appellate-Federation on the ground that it would be brought under Section 44 of the Multi-State Cooperative Society Act, 1984 for the reason that the Government has raised only two nominees of its own even though snatching of two nominees of its own and it has share in the Federation, such contention has been negated by the learned Single Judge. However, the writ petition has been allowed. Learned Single Judge has chosen to set aside the impugned order on the ground that the President has not given any cogent reason for exercising the authority under Regulation 33(d) of the Bye-laws which is extracted below:-

(3.) Learned counsel for the Federation has vehemently argued that the writ cannot be maintained against the Federation on the ground that it cannot be brought under Article 12 of the Constitution of India for the reason that even though the Government has its share of only two nominations of its own. It has been contended that even though the Government has got administrative power through the Managing Director but the writ cannot be brought under the purview of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.