ISHWAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner on 19. 5. 1998 against the respondents with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned order dated 19. 8. 1997 (Annex. 5) passed by the Secretary, Cooperative Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur (respondent No. 1) by which the respondent No. 1 under revisional power allowed the revision petition filed by the respondent No. 4 Sadul Sahar Kray Vikray Sahakari Samiti Limited under Section 128 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1965") and set aside the order dated 9. 5. 1996 (Annex. 4) passed by the Addl. Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jodhpur (respondent No. 3) by which the respondent No. 3 allowed the revision petition filed by the petitioner under Section 128 of the Act of 1965 and set aside the order dated 1. 4. 1988 (Annex. 1) by which the petitioner was compulsorily retired from service under Rule 244 (2) (1) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as "the RSR"), be quashed and set aside.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner as put forward by him in this writ petition is as follows :- THE petitioner was initially appointed with the respondent No. 4 Sadul Sahar Kray Vikray Sahakari Samiti Limited on the post of Manager on 15. 10. 1960. THE further case of the petitioner is that the respondent No. 4 is a Society registered under the Act of 1965 and the service conditions of the employees of the Society are governed by Rule 41 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 1966") and in the Rules of 1966, there is no provision for compulsory retirement of employee serving in the Cooperative Societies. THE further case of the petitioner is that the respondent No. 4 through its order dated 1. 4. 1988 (Annex. 1) ordered compulsory retirement of the petitioner under the provisions of Rule 244 (2) (1) of the RSR and according to the petitioner, that order Annex. 1 is arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional as in the Rules of 1966, there is no provision for compulsory retirement and as per the service conditions, the petitioner could not have been retired till attaining the age of 60 years. Aggrieved from the said order of compulsory retirement dated 1. 4. 1988 (Annex. 1), the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court being D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 704/88 and the same was withdrawn by the petitioner and thus, it was dismissed as withdrawn through order dated 18. 7. 1988 passed by the Division Bench of this Court. THEreafter, the petitioner preferred a revision petition under Section 128 of the Act of 1965 before the Addl. Registrar (Appeals), Jaipur challenging the order of compulsory retirement Annex. 1 dated 1. 4. 1988 and a copy of which is marked as Annex. 2 and thereafter, that matter was transferred to the Addl. Registrar (Appeals), Jodhpur. THE further case of the petitioner is that the order of compulsory retirement dated 1. 4. 1988 (Annex. 1) was passed in pursuance of the enquiry conducted by the respondent No. 4 against him initially under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the CCA Rules") and later on converted under Rule 17 of the CCA Rules and after conclusion of that enquiry, the petitioner was awarded punishment of censure through order Annex. 3 dated 13. 2. 1987. THE further case of the petitioner is that the revision petition filed by him under Section 128 of the Act of 1965 was allowed by the respondent No. 3 Addl. Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jodhpur through order Annex. 4 dated 9. 5. 1996 and the order of compulsory retirement Annex. 1 dated 1. 4. 1988 passed against him was set aside. THE further case of the petitioner is that against the order dated 9. 5. 1996 (Annex. 4) passed by the respondent No. 3 Addl. Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jodhpur, another revision petition was filed by the respondent No. 4 under the provisions of Section 128 of the Act of 1965 and the same was allowed by the respondent No. 1 Secretary, Cooperative Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur through order dated 19. 8. 1997 (Annex. 5) and the order of the respondent No. 3 Addl. Registrar dated 9. 5. 1996 (Annex. 4) was set aside holding inter-alia that the respondent No. 3 Addl. Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jodhpur had no jurisdiction to hear the case under Section 128 of the Act of 1965. In this writ petition, the order Annex. 5 dated 19. 8. 1997 passed by the respondent No. 1 has been challenged by the petitioner on various grounds and the main ground is that once the Addl. Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jodhpur (respondent No. 3) has exercised the revisional power under Section 128 of the Act of 1965 delegated by the State Government on Registrar, Cooperative Societies, then the order Annex. 4 dated 9. 5. 1996 passed by the respondent No. 3 Addl. Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jodhpur under Section 128 of the Act of 1965 is to be treated as an order passed by the State Government and, therefore, subsequent revision filed by the respondent No. 4 against the order Annex. 4 dated 9. 5. 1996 is not maintainable and thus, the order Annex. 5 dated 19. 8. 1997 passed on it by the respondent No. 1 is per se illegal and without jurisdiction. Hence, this petition with the prayer as stated above. A reply to the writ petition was filed by the respondents and it has been contended by the respondents that it is wrong to contend that RSR are not applicable to the employees of the respondents No. 4 and 5 and in this regard, it was further submitted by the respondents that a meeting of the Board of Directors was called for on 4. 5. 1977 under the Chairmanship of Shri Hari Singh and in the said meeting, a resolution No. 9 (5) was passed in which it was thought to make applicable the RSR in respect of the employees of the respondent No. 4 and a copy of that Resolution is marked as Annex. R/1 and on the basis of that Resolution Annex. R/1, RSR were made applicable in respect of the employees of the respondent No. 4. Not only this, a Notification dated 3. 8. 1980 (Annex. R/2) was issued by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jaipur by which the CCA Rules were made applicable in respect of the employees of the respondent No. 4. Thus, from perusing Annex. R/1 and Annex. R/2, it is clear that RSR and CCA Rules are fully applicable to the employees of the respondent No. 4. At this juncture, it may be stated here that through order Annex. 3 dated 13. 2. 1987, penalty of censure was imposed against the petitioner in the enquiry under Rule 17 of the CCA Rules and that order Annex. 3 has become final meaning thereby CCA Rules and RSR were fully applicable in the case of the petitioner. Thus, the preliminary objection that has been taken by the petitioner against the order of compulsory retirement Annex. 1 that RSR are not applicable in the case of the petitioner stands rejected. On revisional power, it has been submitted by the respondents that the revision petition filed by the petitioner under Section 128 of the Act of 1965 before the respondent No. 3 Addl. Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jodhpur was not maintainable and therefore, the order Annex. 4 dated 9. 5. 1996 passed on it by the respondent No. 3 was without jurisdiction and thus, it was rightly set side by the respondent No. 1 through order Annex. 5 dated 19. 8. 1997 and thus, there is no question of second revision as posed by the petitioner in this petition.

(3.) 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.