ISHWAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent - Sadul Shahar Kray Vikray Sahakari Samiti, a Society registered under the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, on consideration of the entire service record of appellant working as Manager, concluded that there was a continuous fall in his work performance, as such, it was in the public interest to prematurely retire him. It was also taken into consideration that he had attained the age of 56 years and served for more than 27 years. THE Chief Executive Officer issued an office order dated 1. 4. 1988 compulsorily retiring the appellant from service under the provisions of Rule 244 (2) (1) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, hereinafter referred-to as "the Rules". THE appellant challenged the said order by way of revision petition before the Additional Registrar-II, Cooperative Societies, Rajasthan, Jaipur. THE said revision came to be allowed by the order dated 9. 5. 96 on the ground that the provisions of Section 244 (2) of the Rules were not applicable to the respondent-Society. THE service conditions of the appellant were governed by Rule 41 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Rules. Under the said rule for a premature retirement, approval of the Registrar is a condition precedent. THE respondent-Society challenged the said decision of the Additional Registrar-II dated 9. 5. 96 by way of a second Revision before the State Government under Section 128 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 1965, hereinafter referred-to as "the Act of 1965". THE Secretary, Cooperative Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur found that the revision before the Additional Registrar was not competent, as the order passed by the Administrator was not that of an officer subordinate to the Registrar. Thus, he was of the view that the Additional Registrar had no jurisdiction to hear the revision application under Section 128 of the Act of 1965. Accordingly, he allowed the revision and set aside the order of the Additional Registrar.

(2.) BEFORE the learned Single Judge, it was canvassed on behalf of the appellant that the power of revision under Section 128 of the Act of 1965 stood exhausted by the Additional Registrar and, as such, the Secretary, Cooperative Department, could not thereafter exercise the power again in respect of the same order. The learned Single Judge rejected the contention having held that the Additional Registrar had exercised the delegated power of the Registrar and not of the State Government. Precisely, the finding has been recorded in para 7 of the judgment as follows: " Therefore, the misconception that has arisen in the mind of the petitioner that the State Government had divested its own revisional power to Additional Registrar is palpably wrong one. In other words, what has been delegated by the State Government is the power of the Registrar to the Additional Registrar and not the power of itself to hear the revision under section 128 of the Act of 1965. "

(3.) A perusal of Clause (a) of sub-section (4) of Section 23 of the aforesaid Act makes it clear that the power of revision has been conferred with the single authority viz; the Commissioner and none else. But in the instant case, the power of revision has been conferred by Section 128 of the Act of 1965 with the State Government as well as the Registrar. Thus, the case cited by the learned Counsel does not advance his case.