^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) N0.11419 of2009 PETITIONER : Jila Sahakafi Kendriya Bank, Devi Gaiij Road, Anibikapur (CG)fhrou^ChiefExecutiveOfficer. VERSUS BfiSPONDENTS • • : 1. State of Chh^ttisgarh, through Secretary, Co- operative Department, Mantralaya, DKS Bfaawaii, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. The Registrar, jCo-operative Societies, Vivekaaaiid Shoppmg Complex, Vivekariand Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, 3. The Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Ambikapur(CCj). 4. Manager Sin^i, Samiti Sewalc, Jila Sahakari Ken<Mya Baiil^ Ambikapur, Samiti Zilda Branch, Chirauri, Korea (CG)., (WRIT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF TFIE CONSTmjTION OF INDIA) (SB; Hon»bteMr. Satish K. Asnihotri, J.) Present : ShriS.S.Rajput,Advocatefbrthepetitionen Smt. Smita Ghai, Panel Lavvyer forthe State. ORALORDER (Passed on 19th day ofMarch, 2009) With the consent ofthe parties, tiie matter is taken up for hearing finally. I • • f 1. The petitioner/Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank (fbr short rBank() challeng^s the legality and validity ofthe orderdated 03.02.1999 (Annexure P/4), passed by the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies^ fbereafter, orders dated 09.07.2002 (Aimexure P/5) and 04.01.2007 (Amiexure P/6), affinned by the Jomt Registi-ar, Cooperative Societies and Secretary, Cooperative Department, State of Chhattisgarh. respectively, further, a writ/direction regarding recovery ofamountofRs. 32,495.84/-fromtherespondenfNo.4. ./• • 2. The tacts, in brief, as averred by the petitioner/Barik is that, the petitioner/Baiik has control and supen/'ision over allthe cooperative societies working within the ai-ea of Bank. Samiti Sevak or Samiti R-abandhak are sent on deputation by the Bank to supei-vise iunctioning ofthe cooperative societies. Adim Jati Sewa Samiti Dhaurpuris one of such societies. The \ respondent No. 4 was SaniitSevak and was posted as Samiti Prabandhak in Adim Jati Sewa Samiti Dhauspur during the period from 20.08.93 to 18.05.95. During such period there was a case of defalcafion of Rs. 8, 07376.50/-. It was due to negligence and delmquency on the part of respondent No. 4. Departmental Enquiiywas accordingly initiated against therespondent No. 4. In the process, show cause notice was issuedon 10.07.95. ^er having afibrded iiill opportumties ofhearing, the enquiiy report was submitted, holding that there was loss to the society on account of negligence or delinquency on the part of respondent No. 4. A Committee., constituted fbr the purpose of enquiry reports by the Bank, accepted the enquiiy report and recoimiiended for imposition of punislmient of withholding two annual increments with cumulative effect artd deduction of Rs. 2000/- per month fi-om the salary of the respondent No. 4 till final decision ofrecovery suit. Onthe basis ofrecommendation, impugtied order, imposing aforesaid punisliment, was passed on 25.07.97 (Aimexiire P/3). 3. The respondent No. 4 filed an appeal before the respondent No. 3 under the provisions of section 55 (2) of Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short 'Act, 1960'). The respondent No. 3 i.e. Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, byorderdated 03.02.99 (Annexure P/4), fbundthatthe mquirywas pen/Terse aiid consequent thereupon, imposition ofpunislmient was illegal, as the enquiiy ofFicer has.not established onthe basis of documents available !• 1 3 fhat the respondent No. 4 was responsible for loss to the Bank. Accordingly, the application of fhe respondent No. 4 was allowed on 03.02.99 (Aimexure P/4). 4. Being aggrieved, the petitioner prefen'ed aii appeal before the Registrar, Cooperative Societies. The Joint Regislrar, Cooperative Societies, afier hearing all parties, affirmed the order passed by the Assistant Registrar and dismissed the appeal on 09.07.2002 (Aimexure P/5). 5. Again, the petitioner preferred second appeal befbre the Principal Secretary, Cooperative Department, Govt. of Chhattisgarhj The Principal Secretary, Cooperative Department, by order dated 04.01.2007 (Aimexure P/6), holding that the Baiik has not produced any documents to establish tiiat the order passed by the authorities below were contrary to provisions of law and contrary to facts, disniisscd the second appeal also. Hence this petition. 6. In the order dated 04.01.2007, the Principal Secretary, Cooperative Depastment, observed that in spite oppoiltunities gi-anted to flie petitionen no response was filed. Even, in the second appeal the respondent No. 4 herein submitted his response by raising some objections, but to deny the said objections, the petitioner herein has not produced any documents. The petitioner has failed to prove its case before the Courts below. Thus, there is no illegality or inflrmity in the orders passed by the Courts below and the same do not wan'ant any interference. 7. Havmg heard leamed counsel appearing for tlie petitioner, pemsed the pleadings and documents appended thereto, it is evident that tilie enquiry report was siot proper, as on the basis of available documents/it could not have been held that the society has suffered loss on account ofnegligence and delinquehcy on the part ofrespondent No. 4. The authorities below have I- 1^1 t! y considered all the facts at lengfh and have rightly come to thc conclusion tfaat imposition ofpunishiBent on respondeht N0.4 was bad in law. 8. It is well-nigh settled prmciple of law that this Court, in exercise of its super\Tisory jurisdiction under Ai-ticle 226/227 of tiie Constitution of India, { should refrain itself from interfering with the order passed by the Gourt below, except in such cases where perversity, illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error is writ large on the face ofthe record, which is not in the presentcase. 9. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed. No order asto eosts. 10, Consequently, pending applications, ifany, staad disposed of. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge