1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1722 OF 2009 1 Satish s/o Babanrao Deshmukh age 51 years, occ. agril. r/o Dewacha Mala Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar. 2 Bhausaheb s/o Shankarrao Dhumal age 55 years, occ. agril r/o Sangamner, Tq. Sangamner Dist. Ahmednagar. .. PETITIONER VERSUS 1 S.T. Gunjal Assistant Registrar Co-operative Societies, Rahuri, Dist. Ahmednagar and Enquiry Officer of Shri B.J. Khatal Peoples Co-operative Bank Ltd. Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar. 2 Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar. 3 The District Deputy Registrar Co-operative Societies, Ahmednagar. 4 Shri B.J. Khatal Peoples Co-operative Bank Ltd., Sangamner Dist. Ahmednagar Through its Liquidator. 5 The State of Maharashtra .. RESPONDENTS 2 Mr. A.N. Nagargoje, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. K.M. Suryawanshi, AGP for respondent nos. 1 to 5. Mr. N.R. Bhawar, Advocate for respondent no. 4. ===== CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J. DATE : 4 th MAY, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1 Heard. 2 Rule. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal at admission stage. 3 During the conduct of enquiry under section 88 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act before the Enquiry Officer, a request was made by the petitioners herein for examination of one D.D. Shinde, District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Ahmednagar so also it was urged to call for certain documents noted in the application dt. 27-2-2009. Request tendered by the petitioner was turned down by the Enquiry Officer in view of order passed on 27-2-2009. 4 I have perused the impugned order and heard respective counsel appearing for the parties. The request for calling witness as well as 3 production of document has been turned down by the Enquiry Officer merely on the ground that the enquiry is required to be conducted in summary manner and it is not necessary for the petitioner to call and examine the witness. It is not the domain of the Enquiry Officer to determine as to whether the witness is necessary from the point of view of the petitioner. He has merely to assess the relevance of the proposed examination of witness and if the request made for calling document and for examination of witness has nexus with the enquiry, it is incumbent upon the Enquiry Officer to call the witness as well as to permit production of document. Order passed by the Enquiry Officer is non-speaking and does not disclose reason as to how the request made by the petitioner for calling the witness is irrelevant. Considering the nature of proceeding i.e. enquiry initiated under section 88 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, the party against whom the charges are levelled i.e. the petitioners herein are required to be extended opportunity to raise their defence and rebut the charges. In this view of the matter, the Enquiry Officer ought to have considered the request of the petitioner for calling witness as well as for calling the document. 5 I have perused the application at exh. D of the compilation tendered 4 by the petitioner on 27-2-2009. Documents mentioned at sr. nos. A, B and C are letter correspondence and the compliance report. The witness namely the District Deputy Registrar shall be directed to place the documents mentioned in the application a sr. nos. A, B and C. So far as the document noted at sr. no. D is concerned, prima facie, there does not appear to be nexus with the record called and the enquiry initiated. Application tendered by the petitioner for calling witness namely D.D. Shinde, District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Ahmednagar shall be deemed to have been allowed and the Enquiry Officer shall also permit production of documents at sr. nos. A,B and C noted in the application dt. 27-2-2009. In this view of the matter, impugned order passed on 27-2-2009 by the Enquiry Officer is quashed and set aside. Considering the pendency of enquiry since the year 2007, it is directed to the Enquiry Officer to expedite the enquiry proceeding and conclude the same as expeditiously as possible preferably by the end of December 2010. Rule is accordingly made absolute. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. ( R. M. BORDE, J.) dyb/office/wp1722.09.odt