IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8572 of 2009 DHIRENDRA KUMAR PANDEY, SON OF SHRI JANG BAHADUR PANDEY, RESIDENT OF MUHALLA- ARWAKOTHI, P.S.- NAGARA, DISTRICT- SARAN (CHAPRA) . Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA. 2. THE REGISTRAR, CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA. 3. THE ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR, CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA. 4. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA. 5. BOARD OF DIRECTORS, CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., MOTIHARI, THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 6. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, THE MOTIHARI CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., MOTIHARI. 7. THE MOTIHARI DISTRICT CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK AT MOTIHARI THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. ----------- For the petitioner : M/S Ajay Kumar Thakur, Sanjay Kumar & J.P.Singh, Advocates. For the Bank : Mr. K.K.Sinha, Advocate. For the State : Mr. G.P.-7. ==== 5. 28.06.2010. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, State and the counsel for the Motihari District Central Co-operative Bank (hereinafter referred to as the “Bank”). 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order bearing Memo No. 2741 dated 19.6.2009 passed by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bihar, Patna, Annexure-14, whereunder petitioner has been directed to superannuate treating 2.3.1950 as his date of birth as according to learned Registrar if the date of birth is taken as 2.3.1955 then on the date of his appointment in the Bank i.e. 01.09.1972 petitioner would have been of 17 years 5 months and 29 days and could not have been appointed in the service of the Bank being less than 18 years of age. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that from the extract of the service-book contained in Annexure-1 it would appear that petitioner was appointed on the post of Office Assistant in the Bank on 01.09.1972 and his date of birth was mentioned as 02.03.1955 in the column meant for recording the same. It also appears from the said extract that 02.03.1955 was encircled and just next to it 02.03.1950 is mentioned both in figure and words. Aforesaid - 2 - discrepancy in the service-book of the petitioner was noticed by the Board of Directors and the Board of Directors after calling for the report from the Headmaster of the School where petitioner had prosecuted his studies until matriculation as also the report from the Bihar School Examination Board which is dated 17.09.2008, 18.09.2008 and 10.11.2008, as contained in Annexures 6,7 and 8 concluded under proceedings of the Board of Directors of the Bank dated 14.2.2009, Annexure-9 that the date of birth of the petitioner is 02.03.1955. Later, the Registrar, Co-operative Societies under the impugned order dated 19.06.2009, Annexure-14 concluded that if the date of birth is taken as 02.03.1955 then he was 17 years 5 months and 29 days on the date of his appointment i.e. 01.09.1972 and could not have been appointed as Office Assistant in the Bank on 01.09.1972 as he was less than 18 years on the date of his appointment and on that basis petitioner has been superannuated under order dated 19.06.2009 with effect from 31.03.2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner questioned the order of the Registrar, Co-operative Societies dated 19.06.2009, Annexure-14 as without jurisdiction. In this connection he referred to Chapter VI-D of the Bihar Co-operative Societies Act, 1935, as amended from time to time and submitted that there are special provisions applicable to the Societies which is undertaking short term co-operative credit structure and the Bank being a short term co-operative credit society undertaking short term co-operative credit structure is beyond the supervisory power of the Registrar, Co- operative Societies and he could not have annulled the resolution of the Board of Directors dated 14.2.2009, Annexure-9 under the impugned order dated 19.6.2009, Annexure-14. 4. Learned counsel for the Bank has opposed the submission with reference to the bye-laws of the Bank and submitted that under the bye-laws of the Bank the resolution of the Board of Directors of the Bank is subject to the approval by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies. Learned counsel has produced a copy of the bye-laws and submitted with reference to bye-law no. 49(A) of the Bank that the Chairman shall be in overall charge of the Bank and shall exercise - 3 - general control and supervision over the affairs of the Bank and the work of the officers. The powers of the Chairman shall be as defined in the Rules of the business passed by the Board of Directors with the approval of the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bihar. 5. The bye-law no. 49(A) referred to above does not empower the Registrar to annul the resolution of the Board of Directors as in the bye-law referred to above it is only the powers of the Chairman shall be as defined in the rules of business passed by the Board of Directors with the approval of the Registrar, Co-operative Societies. Aforesaid bye-law, in my opinion, does not empower the Registrar to call for the resolutions of the Bank and annul the same. In the circumstances, this Court has no option but to quash the order of the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bihar, Patna dated 19.06.2009, Annexure-14, however, with liberty to the Registrar, Co-operative Societies to re-examine the whole matter and if he does have the power, to pass fresh orders indicating his source of power. In terms of the impugned order petitioner was superannuated by the Managing Director of the Bank under order bearing Memo No. 176 dated 01.07.2009, Annexure-15 with effect from 31.3.2008. The effect of the quashing of the order dated 19.06.2009, Annexure-14 is that the subsequent order dated 1.7.2009, Annexure-15 is also quashed. While quashing the aforesaid two orders this Court will direct that petitioner shall not be entitled for salary for the period during which he did not discharge his duties in the Bank with effect from 1.7.2009 till he is reinstated in the light of this order. It goes without saying that the non- payment of the salary in the light of the two impugned orders will not be treated as break in service. 6. The writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. P.K.P. (V.N.Sinha,J.)