1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.4379/2002. : : Surendra Chauhan Vs. Atru Kray Vikray Sahakari Samiti Ltd., & Ors. : : Date of Order 27.1.2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr. S.C.Gupta for the petitioner. Mr. Sandeep Mathur with Mr. Vinay Mathur for the respondents. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition has been filed challenging the judgment of Rajasthan State Cooperative Tribunal, Jaipur dated 6.4.2002 whereby appeal of the respondents was allowed and the award of the Arbitrator dated 30.8.1996 passed under Section 75 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act was set aside. The Assistant Registrar in the aforesaid award had declared removal order dated 7.2.1996 of the petitioner passed by the respondent-society as illegal and held the petitioner entitled to reinstatement in service. 2 Shri S.C.Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that Tribunal has set aside the award of the Arbitrator solely on the premise that Arbitrator misread and misapplied the provisions of Rajasthan Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1958 and that those rules have no application to the employees serving the respondent-society. It was contended that even if the Arbitrator had mentioned the applicability of CCA Rules, it would not make a difference because the respondents had got their own rules titled as Sahakari Upbhokta Whole Sale Bhandar/Kray Vikray Sahakari Samities Employees Service Rules, 1991. Learned counsel referred to Chapter 8 thereof and argued that for any of the misconducts specified in Rule 24, major penalty enquiry could be conducted only in accordance with procedure contained in Rule 24 (iii). The learned Tribunal had come to the conclusion that in CCA Rules had no application but should have at least looked into those rules instead of setting aside the award of the Arbitrator. Shri Sandeep Mathur, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the writ petition and argued that notice was duly served before terminating services of the petitioner. He referred to notices issued to the petitioner on 9.7.1990, 26.9.1990, 4.4.1991 and 12.4.1991 and submitted that after 3 these notices, enquiry as contemplated by the aforesaid rules was held and it was thereafter the order of termination was passed. He also referred to certain other notices served upon the petitioner. Perusal of the award passed by the Tribunal clearly shows that the Tribunal was swayed away by the consideration of the arguments that the Arbitrator had set aside the order of removal for non-compliance of CCA Rules. The award of the Arbitrator which is on record although does refer to applicability of the CCA Rules, but in spirit what it intended to convey was that when the petitioner was removed on misconduct of willful absence, the order of removal ought to have been preceded by the disciplinary enquiry and after due adherence to principles of natural justice. That aspect of the matter has not received consideration by the Tribunal in the light of provisions contained in the rules applicable to the employees of respondent-society. Having regard to the fact of the case, it is, therefore, deemed to appropriate to set aside the order of Tribunal dated 6.4.2002 and the matter is remitted back to 4 the Tribunal to decide afresh to find out whether the order of removal was made in compliance of Rule 24 of Sahakari Upbhokta Whole Sale Bhandar/Kray Vikray Sahakari Samities Employees Service Rules, 1991 and decide the same as expeditiously as possible. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ)J. A.Arora/- Item No.29.