1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.7894/2003. : : Sikar Kendriya Sahakari Bank Ltd. Sikar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : : Date of Order 18.2.2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTI CE MOHAMMAD RAFI Q Mr. Ram Kumar Sharma for the petitioner. Mr. S.P.Sharma for the respondent (s). Mr. Zakir Hussain, Addl.Govt.Counsel for the State. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This matter comes up on application seeking vacation of stay order dated 6.1.2004. However, the arguments that have been heard would suffice for final disposal of this writ petition and, therefore, the main writ petition is being decided. The petitioner aggrieved by the order passed by this Cooperative Minister of Government of Rajasthan dated 20.10.2003 has come up in this writ petition. The Cooperative Minister by the aforesaid order while deciding 2 revision petition filed by the respondent No.2 under Section 107 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 2001 has directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent No.2 in service and also grant him benefit of subsistence allowance and complete the disciplinary enquiry, if any pending, within three months. Shri Ram Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that respondent No.2 was in fact employee of the Rajasthan Cooperative Credit Institutions Cadre Authority Ltd., Sikar and was engaged as Vyavasthapak in Chak Mitai Gram Sewa Sahakari Samiti Ltd. neither of which was the party to the revision petition, which was filed before the Minister. The revision petition was filed in the year 2003 challenging the order of removal dated 29.3.1988, which was passed by the said society after serving upon the respondent No.2 a charge-sheet on charges of misconducts. There was absolutely no explanation whatsoever for the period of delay of 15 years. Notice of said revision petition was issued to the petitioner-bank on 9.10.2003 fixing the matter on 13.10.2003 whereas the same was received in the Office of petitioner- bank on 15.10.2003. The matter was then again taken up by the Cooperative Minister on 17.10.2003, who issued another 3 notice to the petitioner-bank for appearing on 20.10.2003 whereas the notice was delivered in the Office of petitioner- bank on 20.10.2003 at 12:30 pm on the date fixed for hearing. The headquarters of the petitioner-bank was located at 110 kms away from the Jaipur. It was not, therefore, possible for the bank to arrange for appearance for lawyers or otherwise to contest the revision petition. Learned counsel citing the judgment in the case of Jodhpur Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd., Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : SB Civil Writ Petition No.3887/2006 decided on 11.9.2007 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court at principal bench at Jodhpur argued that it was held therein that a Cooperative Body is an autonomous body constituted for specific objects and its officers are accountable to the co-operative society only and not to the State Government or the Registrar and that the revision petition preferred under Section 107 (supra) before the State of Rajasthan was not maintainable. It was, therefore, argued that State of Rajasthan or the Minister would have no jurisdiction to entertain the revision petition. Learned counsel has also cited judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.4235/1996 : Sahakari Samitiyan Vayavasthapak Union etc Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. decided on 1.3.1996. In view of the judgment of 4 Supreme Court, learned counsel argued that the respondent No.2 cannot be accepted as employees of the Central Cooperative Banks and, therefore, the learned counsel argued that he is the employee of the Cooperative Societies and not of the Bank. The direction for reinstatement could not be issued to the concerned Cooperative Societies. The same view was expressed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Rajasthan Sahakari Karmchari Sangh, Alwar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : SB Civil Writ Petition No.5836/1996 decided on 10.9.1999. Shri S. P. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the writ petition and argued that notice was duly issued to the petitioner-bank in the revision petition of the respondent No.2 and that notice was also served. It was argued that Chairman of the concerned Cooperative Society by his letter dated 13.12.2003 has expressed his willingness to reinstate the respondent No.2 in service, but he has for that purpose requisitioned appropriate orders from the petitioner-bank. It was argued that when the cooperative society is willing to take respondent No.2 on duty the petitioner should not object. Learned counsel submitted that delay was duly explained by the respondent No.2 in the 5 revision petition filed before the Minister in the year 2003. Learned counsel has cited the memo of revision petition which is on record at Annex.7. Learned counsel explained that an order of recovery was passed against the respondent under Section 74 of Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act against which he filed appeal before the Additional Registrar, who vide his order dated 16.5.1994 remanded the matter for fresh enquiry. When the fresh order was made against the respondent No.2, in those proceedings on 6.3.1995, he again filed appeal before the Additional Registrar in 1995 itself. He filed an application for grant of interim order in the pending appeal. Additional Registrar by his order dated 27.3.1998 required him to deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/-. He, therefore, filed a revision petition before the State Government, which was accepted vide order dated 26.3.2002 directing that recovery against the respondent No.2 shall remain stayed. Learned counsel submitted that period of delay was thus satisfactorily explained. It was argued that enquiry was held against the respondent No.2 and that the entire proceedings were conducted against the respondent No.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has rejoined and submitted that the respondent No.2 in a written 6 document signed on non-judicial stamp on 27.3.1997 agreed to repay the amount of Rs.63961/-, which he had embezzled from the fund of the society. He cannot be, therefore, permitted to challenge the order of removal passed on such an allegation. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, I find that removal order was passed against the respondent No.2 on 29.3.1988. It is not in dispute that revision petition was preferred by the respondent No.2 before the State Government some time in October, 2003. The respondent No.2 thus took 15 ½ years in preferring the revision petition. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 though has tried to explain the delay, which merely indicates that some recovery order was passed against the respondent No.2 under Section 74 (supra) on 27.3.1998. Even after if this period of delay is examined, it would appear that revision petition has been preferred with delay of 8 years. Even the stay order was passed by the Appellate Authority on 27.3.1998 on the condition of pre- deposit of Rs.50,000/- and against that revision petition was entertained in October, 2003 and decided. This cannot be taken as sufficient explanation such enormous delay. The 7 concerned society was not joined as a party in the revision petition and there was no satisfactory service of notice on the petitioner-bank and the entire proceedings were conducted in a hush hush manner. Even if it is accepted that some recovery proceedings against the respondent No.2 in relation to the same amount, which was subject matter of charge of embezzlement against him was held, the fact nevertheless would remain that order of removal was not challenged by him more than 15 years before any forum known to law. This Court in the case of Jodhpur Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd (supra) has even otherwise taken a view that Government under Section 107 of the Act would not have jurisdiction to entertain a revision petition in relation to employees of the cooperative society. However, if that question is also not taken note of, the delay in challenging the removal order by the respondent No.2 was so enormous that the revision petition could not have been entertained. Surprisingly, the order impugned does not at all discuss as to how the Revisional Authority has satisfied himself about such a enormous delay and no explanation whatsoever was noticed. In the light of the above, the decision of the State Government in entertaining the revision petition was wholly perverse. 8 In the result, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 20.10.2003/4.11.2003 is quashed and set aside. (MOHAMMAD RAFI Q)J. A.Arora/ - Item No.11.