NAROTAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was working as Manager In Bari Brahmana Farmers Co -operative Society (hereinafter referred) to as the lending society). Another Society the Vijaypur Co -operative Marketing Society (hereinafter referred to as the borrowing society) made a request to the lending society for transfer of the petitioner to the borrowing society. The request was agreed to and in this behalf State Co -operative Department passed an order vide no: CAD/Co -op/97 -98/368 -77 dated 07/07/1997 by virtue of which services of the petitioner were transferred from -lending society to the borrowing society. Vide above mentioned order, the petitioner was, however, adjusted as General Manager in the Borrowing Society. Subsequently the petitioner did not pull on well with the borrowing society. A number of allegations against him were levelled. The core allegation related to embezzlement of funds which according to Mr. Parihar, Addl. AG, run in crore. Borrowing society wanted to initiate an inquiry which according to Mr. Parihar, Addl. AG, was obstructed and forestalled by the petitioner. However, while passing an endorsement in order No. SS/RES/ 14 -48 dated 26.04.2001 at No. 4., respondent No. 2 transferred the petitioner and attached him with Deputy Registrar, Co -operative Society Agriculture Jammu. The object of this attachment as reflected by endorsement seems to obstruct the access of the petitioner to Society record during the inquiry.

(2.) DIRECTOR , Command Area Development Jammu passed an order No. CAD/ Coop -4/2001 -2002/354 -59 dated 26/06/ 2001. In terms of this order, the petitioners was reverted back to the lending society. It is this order which seems to have aggrieved the petitioner. He came to the court and this court on 12/07/2001, admitted the petition. The Court was pleased to stay the operation of the order. However, the petitioner according to the pleadings was relieved on 28/04/2001 and because of this Court direction, respondents took him back into the borrowing society.

(3.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties at length. Only two questions in my opinion arise in this case: -