IK^IHE ma«--comT OF eBHAmsGAu 'AE B: BBIT PeT.tTlaiNO.^^ OF2@8i _pEii-Etm ^.J^^ •^'w^^-'-"* Zila Sahakari Ke&d^iya Bsulc Maryacia.*, Bilaspar. (C.G.). Tteougta s The Cfea.ef Exs<S we ^f^tcer. ' ^ • • • e^ A-- VE B SS? S &ESK«B6fS : 1. State of Chhatt&sgarh, Throagh s TNe Sae K, Sat»?fcaritt,a Viibtoag^ D.K.S. Bhawan, Bsa.pBC, (C,a.). Tfte Joiat Registrar, Ge-operativs SQes.i^'t.tfts, fiaaipua, (C.Q.)» The teputy Begistrar, Ce-operative Soeieties, Bilaspur, (C.G.). Danodar Erasad Sharn^, s/e Shri Lud.iism Shaxaa, Aged about 60 y»aEs»R/o Viiltage-BanaEA, PQst-BasasS.:, IBistriet jaBjiBeei-cttaBpa, (C.G. ). Saniti Ssnak, 23,'l.a Sahakarl. Kaadriya Banlci Marya^l^, Bi.laspus, (C.|3.)« G{»n-td..i2 /2/ WIT.reTITItN. SiBMB,TIGfcE12^&2yrQE,THE.:CaiStXte3i.E6» ©F.JNQ1A,.F(»'2Saffi':leF"W APKiOHiIA'IE WIT M. Ti-£:: M^iBAaUS/CEBTI£»ARJETC. OB 0JB6CTION/(»BER J , LIKE NATOBE ETC. . m iii!]li B!t.. Ki :;:t'!I!B!31 • ffi'BiNi, .W!f!R: •<! !:si::;:i;;;: 'y' K '. '•• HIGH COURT OF CHHATTJSGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Writ Petition No. 546 of 2003 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS VERSUS Zila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryqdit Bilaspur ,:.s, State of Chhattisgarh and others fcttA--,.. ||gi!pitl i!: i,:ll; Shri'Rakesh Pandey, counsel forthe petitioner. Smt. Smita Ghai, PL for respondent Nos.1, 2 & 3. Ms. Kavita Tiwari counsel for respondent No.4; WRITPET1TION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORDER (21.09.2010) Challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dafet 22.11.2002 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Joint Registrar, Co-ii operative Societies, Raipur (respondent No.2) in Appeal No. 18/9^ preferred by the petitioner assailing the order dated 12.2.1999 passecl' by the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bilaspur (respondeni' No.3)inSuitNo. 11/55(2)/1993. i ,2. Brief facts of the case are that the services of respondent N0,4 l(Dai:nodar Prasad Sharma) who wasworking as Samiti Sewak wer^ , terminated vide order dated 11.01.1993 on the ground of committjng|[, misappropriation of the amount of Rs. 67,254.75. This terminatiorji| order was assailed by the respondent No.4 by filing a Suit bearing N!o| ii 11/55(2)793 before respondent No.3 under Section 55 (2) of the Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (Annexure P-7]' which was allowed Vide order dated 12.2.1999 (Annexure P-9) and ha was directed to be reinstated without back wages. It has been held by respondent No.3 (the Deputy Registrar) that provisions ofZila Sahakar) Kendriya Bank Karmachari Sewa, Niyam, 1982 have not been followed as required under the law, that the respondent No.4 was not givenj, 19 iia 1118 ,'-?a8?»». gi!'" -;-"<>^ '"< ^ I ••?^ i rl!illi;l: ilMtil' lillil 311EI i-1illi liiB i^ffiiffii ll'i'llll: II(.11111. 9^^ ^3. 2-- proper opportunity to defend himself and the principles of natui@!| justice have not been strictly followed. This order of the Deput'id Registrar was assailed by the petitioner before the Joint Registrar, Co-\ operative Societies, Raipur in an appeal No. 18/1999 and vid^ impugned order 22.11.2002 (Annexure P-1) the said appeal has beer| dismissed. Hence, the present appeal. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that he is confining hi^ argument only on the point of granting back wages to respondent No.4, .He submits that in the said suit an order was passed on 12.2.1999 foit reinstatement of respondent No.4 without back wages and the sann^ has not been challenged by respondent No.4 before the Jbi|n| Registrar, Raipur, therefore the Joint Registrar could not have grantecj back wages in an appeal preferred by the petitioner. He submits thal appellate authority has traveled beyond its jurisdiction while passin^ the impugned order and therefore the order impugned to the effect of granting back wages to respondent No.4 is bad in the eye of law. Hej submits that even otherwise also in view of the judgment of thri Supreme Court in the matter of Zila Sahakari Kendriya Banl^ Mariyadit v. Jagdish Chandra and others reported in 2001 (3) SCC-f 332,respondent No.4 is not entitled for any back wages. Counsel'fc>| the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court on Annexure P-4,i which is the statement of respondent No.4 made before the enquiry officer admitting the fact that he has committed financial irregularitiesj during the year 1984-85 to 1988-89 and he is responsible to repayth^ entire amount. He submits that in view of the admission made by th^ respondent No.4, under no stretch of imagination, he can be grantec| backwages. 4. Counsel for the State has assisted the Court whereas counse:|: for the respondent No.4 has opposed the argument of the petition6rt Undisputedly, respondent No.4 has not filed any appeal against th^ order dated 12.2.1999 passed by the Deputy Registrar, Bilaspui) directing reinstatement of the petitioner without back wages| Consequently, the Joint Registrar could not have passed the order jr|l II l!!?-i;i^i- ym rwar ,E»K;! i?';!^ Kiii m\ an appeal preferred by the petitioner for payment of back wages wher| ,:the samewas not claimed by anyone. Apparently the Joint Registraif has exceeded its jurisdiction while passing the impugned ordsrj Moreover, the law in respect of the grant of back wages is also w^l| settled in view ofthe judgment oftheApex Court (supra) and variQSis|i otherjudgments and it is clear that even otherwise also the respond©h1 No.4 is not entitled for any back wages. Furthermore, present is ^ case where the respondent No.4 has admitted his guilt and has furthei) admitted to repay the entire disputed amount received by him. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitior| is allowed. The impugned order dated 22.11.2002 so far as it relatesl' to grant of back wages to respondent No.4 is set aside., ['^••l;1 il: iigB "H! !i!"]liJttij«! :igs :!-^ ?![: Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge .-':•...;.l;^^ ^'•E';r' ...j.,