GOVIND RAM Vs. THE ADDL. REGISTRAR (FIRST), CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was an employee of the respondent No. 3 Khairthal Kraya Vikraya Sahakari Samiti Limited (herein-after referred to as 'the Samiti'), wherein he was working since 1966 initially as Clerk. He was appointed as Cashier in the year 1973-74. The Assistant Registrar, Kishangarh Bas, respondent No. 2 is said to have visited the office of the petitioner, an inspection note was prepared and communicated to the authorities of the society. For certain lapse, the petitioner was placed under suspension under Rule 41 of the Rules framed under the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act vide Annexure-1 dated 5.12.1977.

(2.) The petitioner was even charge-sheeted vide charge-sheet Annexure-2. Reply was filed by the petitioner denying the charges. Ultimately, enquiry was held against the petitioner, but Board of Directors of the society on 7.1.1978 had exonerated the petitioner which was so communicated to the petitioner vide Annexure-5. He was taken back in service, but was warned. That was the end so far charge-sheet was concerned.

(3.) It is the contention of the petitioner that the respondent No. 2 had not taken the reinstatement of the petitioner in good spirit and became biased. An action under section 32 of the Act was being contemplated for suspending the resolution of the society. Even the suspension order was revoked vide order dated 10.3.1978, copy of the which is attached as Annexure-7. Enquiry was initiated and one Ramavtar Gupta Inspector (Marketing) was appointed as Enquiry Officer vide order dated 25.1.1979. Report is said to have been submitted by such enquiry officer on 17.8.1979. The Assistant Registrar had invoked the powers under Rule 41 of the Rules under the Act and dismissed the petitioner from service vide order dated 1.9.1979. The petitioner aggrieved against the said order did file a revision petition, stating therein that the powers invoked by the Assistant Registrar under Rule 41 had been invoked without jurisdiction. The revision petition was ultimately decided vide Annexure-13 which was dismissed on 1.12.1979 on merits. The revisional authority had observed that he had gone into the record of the enquiry but finding no merit on the case, had dismissed the same, however, the revisional authority had some how omitted to mention or discuss the order Annexure-10-A purported to have been passed under Rule 41 of the Rules by the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, even though it was so specifically taken by the petitioner. Being aggrieved against the impugned orders, the present writ petition has been filed.