NO. 10-COURT’S ORDER WHETHER THE CASE IS OR IS NOT APPROVED FOR REPROTING. [CHAPTER VIII, RULE 32(2)(b)] Description of case Writ Petition (S/S) No.1547 of 2003 Bhagwati Prasad Fuloria … Petitioner Versus State of Uttaranchal through the Secretary, Co-operative Societies, Civil Secretariat, Subhash Road, Dehradun and others. … Respondents Decided on 30thSept., 2008. A.F.R. (Approved for Reporting) Not Approved for Reporting. Date: 30.09.2008 (P.C.Verma,J.) Court No.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S) No.1547 of 2003 Bhagwati Prasad Fuloria ………. Petitioner Versus State of Uttaranchal through the Secretary, Co-operative Societies, Civil Secretariat, Subhash Road, Dehradun and others. ……….. Respondents …………… Sri Lalit Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri H.M.Raturi, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Sri Kailash Chandra Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent No 4. Date: Sept. 30th,2008. Hon’ble P.C.Verma,J. This petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned dismissal order dated 13.03.2001 passed by the respondent No.4-Member Secretary, District Administrative Committee, Almora/General Manager, District Co-operative Bank, Almora, contained in Annexure No.1 to this writ petition. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Secretary, Co- operative Societies on 12.09.1978. Since then the continuously served the department. The petitioner was suspended from service on certain charges levelled against him and Sri D.K.Kothari, Senior Manager, District Co-operative Bank Almora was appointed Inquiry Officer. It is alleged by the petitioner that he was directed to hand over the charge of the Bhaunkhal and Harda Societies to Sri Dham Singh, Secretary, Co-operative Society Chanch but despite several warning letters dated 14.12.1999, 24.12.1999 and 07.1.2000 he did not turn up to take over charge from the petitioner. The respondent no.4 through letter dated 31.03.2000 charged the petitioner that he had not given the charge to Sri Dham Singh within a week since 11.10.1999 i.e. the date on which the suspension order was served to the petitioner. On 03.10.2000 the respondent No.4 served to the petitioner a charge sheet containing 17 charges against him. It is also alleged by the petitioner that in the charge-sheet though there was mention of separate annexure in support of different charges but no annexure was provided to the petitioner with the charge-sheet. On 20.10.2000 the petitioner made a written request to respondent No.4 to provide to the petitioner the copy of the report of inquiry. The petitioner submitted his reply on 25.11.2000 in the absence of the relevant documents. On 22.12.2000 the respondent No.4 sent a letter to the petitioner regarding personal hearing of the petitioner which was to be held on 03.1.2001. The petitioner could receive the said letter only on 06.1.2001 till then the date of personal hearing was over and the petitioner could not participate for want of information. Show cause notice was also replied by the petitioner on 05.02.2001. Thereafter by the impugned order the petitioner was dismissed from service. The appeal filed by the petitioner has also been dismissed by the Deputy Registrar, Co- operative Societies, Uttaranchal. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has come up with this petition. 3. Respondent No.4 in his counter affidavit stated that Dham Singh, who was transferred in place of the petitioner, approached the petitioner on 21.0 8.1998 but the petitioner denied to give charge inspite of repeated request made by Sri Dham Singh. Thereafter Dham Singh informed to the respondent No.4 on 11.09.1998 that the petitioner was not handing over the charge. A letter dated 28/29.5.1999 was sent to the home address of the petitioner stating therein to comply the orders immediately and show the cause otherwise a F.I.R. would be lodged against him but he again did not comply. Thereafter on 14.10.1999 directions were issued to Sri Dham Singh to take over the charge of the Cooperative Society Maulikhal from the petitioner. Dham Sing went to take charge on 02.11.1999 but the petitioner did not hand over charge to him. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner was given full opportunity of hearing during the course of inquiry. 5. The petitioner filed rejoinder affidavit reiterating the averments made in the petition. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material on the file. 7. Sri Lalit Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner made a statement at bar that all Co-operative Societies, including the Co-operative Society of which the petitioner was employee, are within the purview of the Co-operative Institutional Service Board. This dismissal order could be effective only after approval of the Board as required by the Regulations 84 & 87 of U.P. Co- operative Societies Employees’ Services Regulations, 1975. The statement has not been supported by any notification issued under Section 122 of the U.P. Co- operative Societies Act read with Rule 389-A of the Co- operative Societies Rules which could show that the Co- operative Society of which the petitioner has an employee has been placed under the purview of Board as required under Clause (ix) of Regulation-2 of U.P. Co-operative Societies Employees’ Service Regulations, 1975. Therefore, in absence of any such notification, the statement at bar made by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted and, accordingly, the plea of the approval of the Board as required by Regulation 87 read with 84 of the aforesaid 1975 Regulations is not attracted as the regulations are not applicable in case of the Co-operative Society of the petitioner of which the petitioner was employee. Hence the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is rejected. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the Uttar Pradesh Primary Agricultural Co- operative Credit Societies Centralised Service Regulations, 1978 are framed under Rule 30 of the U.P. Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Societies Centralised Service Rules, 1976, hence they are not statutory as they have been framed under Rule 30. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is misconceived. Section 122-A of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act provides creation of Centralised Services, which reads as under:- “122-A. Centralisation of certain services.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the State Government may by rules provide for the creation of one or more services of such employees of such co-operative societies or class of co- operative societies as the State Government may think fit, common to such Co-operative Societies and prescribe the method of recruitment, appointment, removal and other conditions of service of persons appointed to any such service. (2) When any such service is created, all employees of such societies existing on the date of creation of such service on the posts included in such service, shall be deemed to have been provisionally absorbed in the service with effect from the date of creation of such service: Provided that any such employee may, by notice in writing to the prescribed authority within the prescribed period, intimate his option of not becoming a member of such service, and in that event his services in the society shall stand determined with effect from the date of such notice and he shall be entitled to compensation from the society which shall be- (a) in the case of permanent employee, a sum equivalent to his salary (including all allowances) for a period of three months or for the remaining period of his service, whichever is less; (b) in the case of a temporary employee, a sum equivalent to his salary (including all allowances) for a period of one month or for the remaining period of his service, whichever is less. (3) An employee provisionally absorbed under sub-section (2) may be absorbed finally in the service if found suitable after screening in accordance with the instructions issued by the Registrar; and the services of any such employee as is not found suitable for absorption in the service shall stand determined with effect from the dateof issue of orders in that behalf by the prescribed authority and until such authority is prescribed, by the officer specified by the Registrar in that behalf in such instructions and he shall be entitled to compensation as laid down in clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (2) according as he was a permanent or a temporary employee.]” 9. The section begins with a non-standing clause i.e. notwithstanding anything contained in this Act. Thus, the section has overriding effect. It provided that the State Government may by rules provide for the creation of one or more services of such employees of such co-operative societies or class of co-operative societies as the Statement may think fit, common to such Co-operative Societies and prescribe the method of recruitment, appointment, removal and other conditions of service. 10. The analysis of sub-Section (1) of Section 122- A as quoted above shows that the State Government has to frame Rules which may provide for the creation of Centralised Service. The State Government in exercise of its power under this Section has framed U.P. Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Societies Centralised Service Regulations, 1976 and provided by Rule 30 for creation of Centralised Service. 11. Thereafter, the State Government has by Rule 30 provided for creation of a Centralised Service by framing a regulation which has been framed and is known as U.P. Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Societies Centralised Service Regulations, 1978 which provides for; (i) Method of promotion, appointment, probation, confirmation and termination; (ii) Service records, seniority, reversion, retrenchment and resignation; (iii) Pay scales, allowance, increment, joining time, leave, efficiency bar, etc.; (iv) Conduct and discipline, penalties, disciplinary proceeding and appeals; (v) Provident fund, gratuity, security and advance. 12. Since the State Government has by Rule 30 provided for creation of Centralised Service by framing a regulation by the Registrar, the regulation cannot be said to be non-statutory. I consider if from the another point of view; whether the regulations suffer from vice of sub delegation of power. A perusal of Section 122-A of U.P. Co-operative Societies Act clearly shows that the power has been delegated to the State Government to frame rules to provide for creation of Centralised Service and under Rule 30 the State Government has provided for creation of Centralised Service by regulation. Since in the Act itself directly the State Government has given the power for creation of Centralised Service by Rules and State Government has provided for creation of Centralised Service by Regulation, Section 122-A permits the sub-delegation of power to the Registrar. Therefore, the U.P. Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Societies Centralised Service Regulations, 1978 does suffer from vice of sub-delegation. If it does not suffer from vice of sub-delegation, then it cannot be said to be non-statutory in nature and argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is rejected. 13. The learned counsel for the petitioner lastly argued that the respondents did not supply copy of the inquiry report or any adverse material to him. Thus, the petitioner was not given opportunity to defend him. I also find no force in this argument of learned counsel for the petitioner. In the counter affidavit filed by respondents it has been stated that inspite of service of the charge-sheet dated 03.10.2000 the petitioner did not file any objection within stipulated time. Through letter dated 20.11.2000 the petitioner was again asked to file objection immediately to the Inquiry Officer. All the documents regarding the charge-sheet were furnished to the petitioner and he was given full opportunity of hearing. The replies filed by the petitioner during the course of inquiry clearly shows that the petitioner was given opportunity to defend his case in every stage. This argument is also rejected accordingly. 13.A- No any other point pressed. 14. In view of the discussion made above, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. (P.C.Verma, J.) P. Singh