1 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 403/1997 Vasu Deo Acharya Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order :: 16.04.2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr Sanjeev Sharma, for the petitioner/s. Mr I.S. Pareek } for the respondents. Mr S.N. Trivedi } ... The petitioner while working as Manager, Jaisalmer Sahakari Wholesale Bhandar, Jaisalmer faced a disciplinary action under a memorandum dated 23.12.1991 for the charges of negligence while discharging duties and for committing irregularities by acting contrary to bye-laws of the Society. As per the statement of allegations the petitioner purchased certain goods without advise of the purchasing committee and that was a gross negligence, it was also alleged that he was also negligent in getting the construction work executed in contravention of bye-law No.12(3) of the Applicable Bye-Laws which provides that no work relating to the Society can be executed without forming an adhoc sub committee. The petitioner was also charged for causing economic loss to the Society by making a purchase of Rs.85,523/- without inviting tenders and for acting in violation of bye- law No.11(5)(7) of the applicable Bye-Laws while removing Sh. Dhanraj Vyas from the Board of Directors of the Society. As per the charge-sheet 2 the petitioner also misused his office by giving employment to his son Sh. Bhanwar Lal without having requisite qualification. The disciplinary authority by relying upon the report of inquiry found the petitioner guilty for the charges relating to execution of construction work without constituting an adhoc committee and for illegal removal of Sh. Dhanraj Vyas from the Board of Directors of the Society. Accordingly, a penalty of withholding of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect was inflicted with forfeiture of pay beyond the subsistence allowance already paid relating to the period of suspension. An appeal preferred by the petitioner challenging the order passed by the disciplinary authority came to be partly allowed under an order dated 26.7.1996. The appellate authority exonerated the petitioner from the charge relating to execution of construction work without constituting an adhoc committee, however, the finding given with regard to unauthorized removal of Sh. Dhanraj Vyas from the Board of Directors was affirmed, and therefore, the penalty was reduced from withholding of two annual grade increments to withholding of one annual grade increment. To challenge the order passed by the appellate authority this petition for writ is preferred. The only contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner never acted beyond the jurisdiction vested with him in 3 view of the fact that election of Sh. Dhanraj Vyas as an office bearer of Hansuwa Gram Sewa Sahakari Samiti Ltd. itself was bad. It is also pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner never removed Sh. Dhanraj Vyas from the Board of Directors but he simply informed the Registrar, Cooperative Societies regarding illegal representation of Hansuwa Gram Sewa Sahakari Samiti Ltd. through the petitioner in the Board of Directors of the Society. I do not find any merit in the argument advanced. Learned counsel for the respondents has shown me the inquiry report wherein the inquiry officer narrated relevant portion of the order dated 12.1.1988 removing Sh. Dhanraj Vyas from the Board of Directors. A copy of the order dated 12.1.1988 is also available on record, from reading of which it is apparent that the petitioner while working as General Manager of the respondent-Cooperative Society removed Sh. Dhanraj Vyas from membership of the Board of Directors, though it was beyond his authority. The letter dated 12.1.1988 is addressed to Sh. Dhanraj Vyas and not to the Registrar, Cooperative Societies. In view of the factual position aforesaid it is misdirected effort to say that the petitioner simply informed the Registrar regarding disability of Sh. Dhanraj Vyas to continue as member of Board of Directors. The conclusion arrived at by the disciplinary authority is based on adequate consideration of entire evidence available on record. 4 No other ground is advanced to challenge the order impugned. The petition for writ, in view of whatever said above, is having no merit, and as such, the same is dismissed. (GOVIND MATHUR), J. Jgoyal '