BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR .P. (227nm. ‘?Crg / 2009 2&3 CONSTITUTION OF INDIA N w WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF : THE PETITIONER APPLICANT / Ashok Kumar Sahu, Son of Chhannulal Sahu, aged about PmxMg‘qiél presmwéw" “A" \ ii?&&rx‘4.@ ) L2" ....... ”9....-. - 43 years, reSident of Village and Post Magarlod, District Dhmatari (C.G.) W............................. VERSUS RESPONDENTS / Zila Sahakari NON—APPLICANTS Sahakari Kendriya Bank Malyadit, G.E.Road, through its Chief Executive Officer, G.E.Road, Raipur (C.G.) HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR /€/’/‘/- Writ Petition 1227! No. 7459 of 2009 Pgtitioner Ashok Kumar Sahu V€rsus Respondents Zila Sahakan' Kendrjya Bank Malyadit, Rajpur WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotd J.) Shri P. R. Patankar, Advocate for the petitioner. O R D E R (Oral) (Passed on this 12th day ofJanuaxy, 2010) Heard. The petitioner by this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, impugns the order dated 511.2009 (Annexure P/7), passed by the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, 1‘11 Revision Case Appeal No. 150/2009 (Zila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maiyadit, Raipur Vs. Ashok Kumar Sahu), whereby the order dated 17.9.2GO9, passed by the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Raipur, wae stayed till the next date of hearing. The bn'ef facts, in nutshell, are that the petitioner was working on the post ofSamiti Prabandhak in Zila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit (for short ‘the Bank’) at Magarlod Branch. On certain alleged charges a» departmental enquiry Was initiated against the petitioner and subsequently, his services were tenninated by order dated 1.9.2009 (Annexure P/ 1). The petitioner challenged the termination order by filing an application before the Deputy Registrar, (Do-operative Societies, Raipur. The Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Raipur by interim ordér dated 17.9.2009 (Annexure P/S) stayed the termination order dated 1.9.2009 (Annexure P] 1). 3. Being aggrieved by the interim order dated 17.9.2009, staying the effect and operation of the termination order dated 1.9.2009, the Bank filed a revision under Section 78 of the Cooperative Societies Act. The Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Raipur by impugned order dated 5.11.2009 (Antvexure P/S) stayed the order dated 17.9.2009 passed by the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative'Societies, Raipur, whereby the eiTect and operation of the termination order dated 1.9.2009 was stayed. The impugned order dated 5.11.2009 reads as under 2 “Hematite Iumu’rmemm lam mmdwéniiwwé lummq§mfa5mmél .mwahmnahmawimmm Isa??? qwdmammmnmwwmmw mWm.umama$§#nd Iaafdmaéx‘i nataiaméwmmwdgqauwam aduwa§mw§ IWWWMWEHadm muddmmaasmmzddmmmdém mmn$mwma€imwm lqem Qwwdgtnmmngwqimmm$a§ad mWaima‘a‘Tmé lame'tfaawmmmm mwm17/9/99$%Wafrmgtm§aét%f§r wwmw€amumduaamt¥r$m$ maqxwwqatm‘tgwegmzo/H/mogma i” Thereafter, the matter was taken up on 20.11.2009 and 4.12.2009. On 20.11.2009 the presiding ohicer was on leave and on 4.12.2009 the matter was directed to be taken up on 8. 1.2010 for healing on the tempomry injunction. @7' gn Léamad counsel appcaring for the imatiticner submits that the court balow has adjoumsd the mattsr 011 three dates, Without any reason. He fwr’rher submits ihat although the Deputy Registrar had passed the older of stay of the terminaiion order after hearing both the parties, whereas the Joint Registrar has passed the ex~parte order and thereafter the matter could not be heard on subsequent dates, thus the proceeding before the Joint Registrar suffers from material irregularity and warrants interference by this Court. II have heard learned counsel appealing for the petitioner mid perused the documents appended thereto. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case; this Court is of the View that if the matter is adjourned for two three times, it cannot be said that there is any procedural irregularity. It is Well—nigh established that this Court in exercise of its supervisoxy jurisdiction should refrain itself from interfering with the order passed by the Courts below, except in such cases where perversity, iilegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error is writ large on the face of the record, which is not in the present caSC. In View of the foregoing, the writ petition is dismissed at motion stage. However, it is expected that the application of the petitioner for vacation of the intelim order dated 5. 1 1.2009 may be considered and decided in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. r Satish K. Agnihotri; Thakur : ‘N‘ sw—