AJAY SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) The order passed by the learned Single Judge is sought to be challenged mainly on the ground that even if the petitioner-appellant did not file any reply, it was incumbent upon the authority to conduct inquiry, as envisaged under Sec. 30 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 2001 (for short, 'the Act of 2001'), in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Geeta Patel v. The State of Rajasthan and Ors. [(2014) 3 WLC (Raj.) 13].

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that merely because reply was not submitted, the authority proceeded to mechanically examine the allegations without conducting due inquiry and without recording specific findings on the following points, namely, (a) Loan was not distributed; (b) manager was illegally allowed to continue after the age of superannuation and (c) the relevant record and documents were not provided at the time of inquiry under Sec. 55 of the Act.