1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.4879/2000. : : Dausa Kraya Vikraya Sahakari Samiti Vs. The Registrar Co-operative Socities & Ors. : : Date of Order 2.7.2008 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr.Tarun Choudhary for the petitioner. Mr.C.P.Sharma for the respondent No.4. Ms.Parinitoo Jain, Dy.Govt.Counsel, for the State. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition has been preferred against the award of the Arbitrator dated 24.6.1998 whereby the dispute brought for arbitration before him by the respondent No.4 was allowed in his favour and also the order dated 20.2.1999 passed by the learned Tribunal whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the said order was dismissed. The respondent No.4 aggrieved by the order of removal from service dated 13.3.1989 passed by the Chairman of Dausa Kraya Vikraya Sahakari Samiti approached this Court by filing writ petition. The writ petition was dismissed with direction to him to avail the remedy of arbitration under Section 75 of the 2 Rajasthan Cooperative Act, 1965. This is how the learned Arbitrator decided the same in favour of the respondent No.4 and against the petitioner. Shri Tarun Choudhary, the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Arbitrator was not justified in holding that the respondent was removed from service without any enquiry. It has also been submitted that Board of Director of the petitioner-society adopted the service rules applicable to the employees of the Cooperative Department vide order dated 21.10.1988 and that by the said resolution the Board also appointed a Committee of three members to hold disciplinary enquiry of the respondent No.4. He presented his case before the Enquiry Committee and submitted his defence, but he never raised any objection as to the consideration of the Enquiry Committee or the procedure adopted by it. The Arbitrator has given undue importance to the fact that the the question with regard to disciplinary action against the respondent No.4 was not originally included in the agenda and that it was taken up for consideration only with the permission of Chairman. The learned Arbitrator erred in law in deciding the matter against the petitioner simply because the proceedings against the 3 respondent No.4, drawn on a separate sheet and not in a regular register. The learned counsel submitted that the respondent did not make payment of the rent for the official accommodation. The learned Tribunal further committed error of law in dismissal of the appeal only on the ground of limitation without going into the merit. Mr.C.P.Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent No.4 opposed the writ petition and submitted that respondent No.4 was appointed by Registrar, Cooperative Society vide order dated 9.8.1960, copy of the appointment order has been placed on record. It was argued that his services could not be terminated by the Chairman of the petitioner-society where he was working only under the order of Registrar. The learned counsel further submitted that the learned Arbitrator has recorded the findings as to the incompetence of the Chairman of the petitioner-society and also to the fact that no enquiry as contemplated by the Rules was conducted inasmuch as the respondent No.4 was not provided any opportunity to put his defence. Neither any record/documents were made available to him nor he was given the opportunity to produce his evidence. There was thus a total failure of principles of natural justice. The 4 petitioner-society failed to produce the relevant record even before the Arbitrator showing the constitution of the Enquiry Committee or enquiry report or even the proceedings of the Board of Director in that behalf. The learned Arbitrator, therefore, rightly allowed the petition of the respondent No.4. It was also contended that in the meantime the respondent has reached the age of superannuation and in such scenario even if the Tribunal dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay, it was justified in doing so. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders, I find that the learned Arbitrator has passed a detailed and reasoned order why the removal of the respondent No.4 by the Chairman of the petitioner-society was bad in law. When the respondent No.4 was appointee of the Registrar of the Cooperative Society, and was working for society under the authority of the Registrar, the Chairman of the petitioner-society had no power to remove him from service. Moreover, his removal was made by a method completely unknown to law. No enquiry as prescribed by Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 was conducted. When the respondent No.4 was subjected to such 5 enquiry, he was not provided any opportunity to defend himself. Neither any document was given nor was be given opportunity to produce witness. In such a case, the Arbitrator, in my view, was fully justified in setting aside the order of termination. The learned Tribunal also was justified in dismissing the appeal. I, therefore, find no merit in this writ petition and the same is dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ)J. A.Arora/- Item No.35.