IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION ( ^ 1 N0. l(^/ ^OF 2009 PETITIONER ,r). ^ r>. ^^- .-<.^^- ^•'^" y'' .v ^y' ^- RESPONDENTS 1-. 2. 3. 4. ^' Gramin Seva Sal-iakari Samiti Maryadit, Achola, Tahsil & Dist. Mahasamund, through its President Chunnulal Sahu, S/ o Kejurajn Sahu, aged about 64 years, R/o village Gadsivini, P.S. Tumgaon, Tahsil & District Mahasamund (CG). Versus State of Chhattisgarh, through fhe Secretary, Department of Cooperative, DKS Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (CG). Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Chhattisgarh, Raipur (CG). Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Mahasamund (CG). Pushpanand Sahu, Clerical Assistant, Gramin Seva Sahakari Saxniti Maryadit, Achola, Tahsil & Dist. Mahasamund (CG). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA l—L .•..0^2 HIGH COURT OF CHHATfISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (8) No. 4549 of2009 PETITIONER RESPONDENT8 Gramin Sewa Sahakari Maryadit, Achola & Others. VERSU8 State ofChhattisgarh & Others. Samiti WMT PEITIION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri. J. Present: Sliri Shashank Thakur, Advocate for the petitioner. Sliri Ajit Singh, Panel Lavvyer for the State/respondent No. 1 to 3. ORDER(ORAL) (Passed on 30th day ofMarch, 2011) 1. Chalienge in this petition is to the order dated 03.08.2009 (Aimexure P/l) passed by the respondent No. 2, whereby the revision preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 21.01.2008 (Aimexure P/8) wherein an order ofstay was granted in favour ofthe respondent No. 4, has been dismissed. 2. Leamed counsel appearmg for the petitioner submits that the respondent No. 4 committed embezzlement of paddy. Thus. the managing coiimiittee oftlie petitioner society unaniiiiously decided to remove the respondent No. 4 from service. The said decision was conmiunicated to the Chief Executive Ofilcer, Zila Sahkari Kendriya Bank, Raipur and the respondenf No. 3. Being aggrieved, the respondent No. 4 prefeiTed an appeal before the respondent No. 3, and the respondent No. 3, vide order dated 21.01.2008, granted an ex parte order ofstay in favour ofthe respondent No. 4. The said order was challenged by the petitioner by way of revision which was also dismissed by the respondent No. 2, vide its order dated 03.08.2009. He further submits that the impugned order dated 03.08.2009 is a non-speaking order as no materials which were placed before Iiim, were considered. /^ y ^,^:':-"\ t^^ll ^ \^^/ Be that as it may, in noniial course, in a case of removal fi'om sei-vice, no interim reliefmay be granted to the petitioner until and unless the removal is set aside. in the substantive petition. Interim reliefwas gi'anted to fhe respondent No. 4 on fhe ground ihsitprima facie, provisions of law has not been followed. Since the interim stay was granted by the Deputy Registrar on 21.01.2008, and revision against the said order filed by the petitioner/employer was rejected by the Additional Registran thus, at this stage, no order is necessary to set aside the interim order passed by the Deputy Registrar in favour ofthe respondent No. 4. However, having regard to the facts situation ofthe case, ^dien the respondent No.4 has been removed from service, the authorities ought to have been slow in gi'anting stay of the removal order. Accordingly, the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Mahasamund, is directed to decide the substaiitive petition i.e. Appeal Case No. 2/07-08, tlled by the respondent No. 4, as early as possible. preferably within a period oftvvo months from today. It is made clear that any obsen7ation made heremabove, shall not be constmed as an opinion ofthis Court on the merits ofthe case and the same shall not come in the way ofthe respondent No. 3 in deciding the case on merits, in accordance with law. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of Sd/- SatisbK.Agnihotn Judge Aimt