;pas?-t:a u\ ^ K PETITIONER ^ INTHEHIGHCOtJRTOFJUDiGATUREATBILASHE CHHATTI8GARH W.P.NO.ll-Sj OF2003 istriet Cooperative Cehttal Batik Ltel. Baaspur.(C.G.) TIirough : Ttie ChiefExeoutive Qffieer, Copperative Cenual Baak, ttti. BUaspur (0.0.}; VERSUS '•:% : ^' ;1: :'^:.;:/' ,;^:.^ JbintRegistrar. C'o-aperativ®Soeiefies,g :RaipurLatohAt(}t;(G.O.^,,y..:-:^;.''^:?:'^^^^ Dspiity, RegisfcaT, Co-opCTatif1e ;' •• i i^s.s^'"" f :.- ' S|iSeties, Bilaspur^.G.): -: . ,^ ^.Jj|j .'"'^wft-'eV^-'''' //v 6^-3- KMnjanI^S/ffShriMtuaJiBe'sjjangang RESPONDENTS 2. •^^ 'e^A/-'"' KUaward, Jutu Biiaspur, 'Eah. Miff'Eiistf.-; Bilaspur(C.^ ;!EETITION .UNDER,^M['K2Msl^ INDIA: I<'OR::,lgSBiBffl@ NATUR&OR.fi'IREC'lEmi s['maMMB!ii'tE 3'ni: o:":iTwii<<irt«,wCT]wis,Rdi'yy'( Lio.f. KJtR. A\^'l / 03 SltlW^IT^ ^?T (ra^(ijcilj(si,ri) W^200 Sii^s'twR'ii* asiran^CTdiii* B^li8R^i1^r SIT^CT ^ «l?i«fn<Qitiinr^'fe'^|^Rl'yi>( ^art^q 3(1^1 "^ 20.9.2005 Shri S. L. Kuipai, counsel for the petitioner. Shri PrafuU Bhai^t counsel for the Respondent No.3. ' " Leamed Counsel| for fhe petitioner submits that the impugncd order dated pS.07.2002 passed in. CaseNo. 28/55 (2)/2000 .by (he Dep lily Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bilaspur aad. fheord^rdated 26.11.2002" passediu Appeal No. 78-25/2002, by| fhe Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Chhattisgar|i, Raipur are perverse because the aufhoritieS below have aot considered fhe fact fhat fhe serious aUegatfon of embezzle4ient to fhe tune ofRs. 92,920=41 was atleged agatast fhe r^spondeut No, 3. Leamed counsel, therefore, prays that f4e ixnpugned orders be quashed. Lcarued counsel) for the respondent No. 3 submits that fhe impugaed order passed withoyt hold tenninating the re^ t>f termmation dated 28.06.2000 was ling a departmeaital iuquity, beft>re pondent No. 3 fioin serwice, in contravention of Rul^ 58 (B) of the Chhattisgarh Ke Zila Sahakari Kendriya Nibaadhan Tafha UD]4KaiyaStifh^ Nyam, 1982. The Depuly R| tenaination orderwasl not coiapUed with. Bank Karmachari Seva (Nyojaa, eguter has rightfy Jfiiund that the unconstituttonal in vjew ofthe fact that fhe statutoiy provisioi^ of holdiag a departmental inquity was The Joint Registrar in appeal has confinned fhe finding |of the Deputy Registrar in regard to fhe f • -.. '' J_ SP/FS/2005-20,000 XI-HC-78 ^c^ '•<<l<ltrti.l;yT^'H<l^,Rrt|<fl^ Oa.p.^j^, lls-1; (© IKIWI^TT^ • 3n$CT!HR'ij* ?CTan^?ianira? 3n^rq^»(t(zifg^) S^TTSR^ftg 3)I^?I —'2.-2 respondent No. 3. Wifh Registrar wifhout considi wivfvs^iwrM'fiW^S-^fyli^l. ^3rt^tt3p^?I setting aaide offhe tenuu^ation order and reHistateiaent ofthe regard to fhe back wages, the Joiat :ring the relevaat facts as to whefher the respondent No. 3 wa^ gainfulty einployed elsewhere or not, has graated 100% back ^vages ou the principfe fhat quMhing of tenninatiDn foUows ^OWti'bacla wa%es aa consequential rdie£ I , It is settled prmci|)le of law that ia aU cases where fhe terminatun of fhe einp^oyee is quashed, fhe .consequential relief of 100% liack wafees would depend on fhe facts aad' circiUD.staD.ces of the c^ise. The aufhorities/:tribunals aiust consider ofhcr relevanlj facfs, whether the eiaployee was gamfulfy einployed else^rhere or not, fhe peiiod of absence fi-om. semce and the a4aouat iavolved ia payincnt of 100% back wages. Since ^ie aufhorities/ ttibiinals Uave not considered the aforesa|d facts while grantmg 100% back wages,fhe oiderQffheJ^ititRegistrardated 26.11.2002 to fhe extent of gradt of 100%^>ackwages deseryes t6 be set aside. The impugaed^ orders passed by fhe auth.oriti.es/ta;ibzmals n^ed no iaterference wifh regard to fhe reiastateiaent of fhe r^spondent No. 3 as fhe ternnination order was passed withoi|it holding any departmental inquuy m view offhe provisions oflRule 58 (B) ofthe Rules, 1982. After hearing le^iraed coimsel for the parties aad perusiag ttie records, I am. of fhe view fhat ftie order dated (S) ^a4'rQW\cW,w\v , Rini'flyx (^i.p.W V1J-1JOJ WWsW^fW """"""""""' gn^CTiSTjK^P aansn^sijprt* (-•, ^ 311^91 <raw(l5ll3Isi<s) ~?^ffSR'nR<I 911^1 tbl'l|iri41'1tllWVit'fo'^<lR«'-sl'< iti3I^*t3Il4SII 05.07.2002 passed bj the Jbint Registrar, G fhe Depuly Registrar, Co-operative Socialites, Bilaspur an^t the order dated 26. 11.2002 passed by t-operative Societies, Raipur are valid wifh regard to the qi(ashing of the termiaation order and directing reinstateinenl) offhe respoadent No. 3. So far as the back wages are concenjied, since att the above stated relevaat facts were not conside^-ed while granting 100% 6ack wages, the finding of fhe Jou^t Registiar to the extent of grant of 100% back wages is se|t aside. The inatter is remaiided back to the Deputy Registra|~, Co-operative Socicties, Bilasptir fer cousidering fhe case ol the respondent No. 3 wifh regard to grant ofback wages, a|ter hearing both the partjes, withm. a period oftwo months fi^m fhe dateofreceipt ofthis order. The parties will ^resent fhcinselves before fhe Deputy Registear, Co-operative Societies, Bilaspur on 28 September, 2005. In view ofthe foi^JDing, fhe petition is aUowed ia part to / fhe extent iadicated her^inabove. No order as to costs. Certified copy as ^er Rules, Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge SP/FS/2005-20,000