Madhya Pradesh High CourtManish Kumar Pandey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 February, 2018THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                             WP-10944-2014
                      (MANISH KUMAR PANDEY Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)


20
Jabalpur, Dated : 08-02-2018
Shri A.M. Trivedi, learned senior counsel with Shri Jayant Patel, learned counsel
for the petitioner.
Smt. Janhvi Pandit, learned Government Advocate for respondents no.1 to 7.Shri Parag Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent no.6.
With consent the matter is heard finally at motion stage.
Respondent no.6 published an advertisement thereby inviting applications for




                                                                             sh
appointment on the post of Cashier on emergency basis on 13.09.2012 as the
post of cashier was lying vacant for long time.e
                                                                  ad
The petitioner has submitted his application for appointment on the said post,
accordingly, executive committee of the society passed a resolution in favour of
                                                             Pr
the petitioner on 01.10.2012. The said resolution was sent to the Deputy
                                                     a
Commissioner Co-operative Society which was approved by him vide letter
                                                   hy

dated 21.11.2012 thereby the petitioner was appointed on the post of Cashier
                                             ad



vide order dated 23.11.2012 and he joined the same post on 24.11.2014 and
since then he is continued to work on the said post. In the meanwhile one
                                     M




Rajnish Pandey has made a false complaint against the appointment of the
                                  of




petitioner and Joint Commissioner without any authority and in political pressure
directed Deputy Commissioner vide letter dated 06.03.2013 to make enquiry in
                            rt




respect of complaint made by respondent no.7. Accordingly, Deputy
                      ou




Commissioner vide letter dated 06.03.3013 called the explanation to respondent
                  C




no.6. The society has given his reply in favour of the petitioner, thereafter, the
Deputy Commissioner submitted an enquiry report before the Joint
             h
      ig




Commissioner on 20.06.2013. In the meanwhile, respondent no.7 filed a writ
     H




petition before this Court which was registered as W.P. No.12879/2013. The said
writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 08.08.2013 and directed the
respondent no.7 to file a fresh dispute before the competent authority within a
period of 15 days of the said order. Respondent no.7 did not file any dispute
before the competent authority till this date. Thereafter, the Deputy
Commissioner vide its letter dated 06.09.2013 directed the Cooperative
Inspector to make enquiry in respect of complaint about the petitionerâs
appointment. The Cooperative Inspector without giving the sufficient opportunity
to the petitioner submitted his enquiry report on 27.09.2013. Respondent no.7
again filed a writ petition i.e. W.P. No.5139/2014 before this Court. The said writ
peitition was disposed of vide order dated 05.04.2014 with a direction to
respondent no.3 to take appropriate action against the petitioner on the report
 which is submitted pursuant to the order dated 08.08.2013 passed in writ
petition no.12879/2013. In pursuance of the directions issued by this Court the
Joint Director asked the petitioner to submit his explanation. Accordingly, the
petitioner has submitted his explanation on 05.07.2014 thereafter without
considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner the Joint Registrar
passed an order dated 14.07.2014 thereby terminating the services of the
petitioner. Being aggrieved by that order, the petitioner has filed the present
petition.Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner argues that the
order passed by the Joint Registrar is illegal and without jurisdiction. He submits
that the petitioner is the employee of the Cooperative Society and, therefore,
the Joint Registrar has no power to pass the order of termination. He further




                                                                  sh
submits that the Joint Registrar should have forwarded his report to the




                                                              e
Cooperative Society and thereafter it is for the society to pass the order of




                                                           ad
termination. For the said purpose, he relied on the judgment passed by this

                                                      Pr
Court in the case ofBindravan Yadav Vs. State of M.P. and Otherspassed
in W.P. No.10944/2015 on 15.11.2016.a
                                             hy

Learned Government Advocate argues that the order impugned has been
passed in pursuance of the direction issued by this court in W.P. No.5139/2014
                                        ad



and the same has been passed after giving proper opportunity of hearing to the
                                  M




petitioner.Learned counsel for respondent no.6 submits that the appointment of the
                               of




petitioner was made in accordance with law.rt




Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. This Court in the
                     ou




case ofBindravan Yadav Vs. State of M.P. and Othersin para 4 has held as
under:-C
              h




   Parties agreed that this matter is covered by the recent order passed by
      ig




   this Court in W.P. No.19591/2015 (Dinendra Kumar Pandey Vs.
     H




   Commissioner Rewa and Ors.). In the said case, this Court held as
   under:-â 7. The petitioner has specifically pleaded in Para 1 (iv) and
          Ground 6 (G) that he was appointed on the post of Salesman by Sewa
          Sehkari Samiti. This contention is not denied by the respondents.
          This Court in Amrendra Singh (supra) held that the petitioner is
          an employee of Cooperative Society and Sub-Divisional Officer has
          no authority in law to remove the employee of said society. Reliance
          is placed on Clause 13 of Control Order, which reads as under:-
              â 13 Power to give necessary directions- The
              Commissioner, Collector and allotment authority/notified
                   authority may issue directions under their competency to
                  ensure the planned distribution of essential commodities
                  under the public distribution system and the fair price
                  shop/society/lead society are duty bound to follow the
                  directions.â
[Emphasis Supplied]8. I have carefully gone through Clause 13 and other provisions, which
           are mentioned in the impugned order dated 31.01.2013(Annexure P-4).The said provisions do not provide any power of termination of a society
           employee to the Sub-Divisional Officer. In other words, the provisions
           on which reliance is placed do not give any power to the Sub-Divisional
           Officer to terminate the services of an employee of the society. Thus,




                                                                    sh
           the case of the petitioner is covered by the judgment of this Court in




                                                               e
           Amrendra Singh (supra). Resultantly, the impugned order dated




                                                            ad
           31.01.2013 (Annexure P-4) is set aside. Respondents will be at liberty to

                                                       Pr
           take an appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with
           law.a
                                                  hy9. Petition is allowed. No cost.â
                                           ad



Thus, as per the said judgment, the State Government has no power to
                                         M




terminate the services of the employee of the society. In the present case,
admittedly, the petitioner is the employee of the Cooperative Society and,
                                      of




therefore, the Joint Registrar has no power to terminate his service. At the best
                                     rt




after making enquiry the Joint Registrar should have forwarded the report to the
                              ou




society and the society should have been directed to take necessary action
against the petitioner.C




Thus, in light of the aforesaid judgment as well as discussion, the present writ
                   h




petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 14.07.2014 is hereby set aside
        ig




and the Joint Registrar is directed to forward its report to the concerned society
       H




i.e. respondent no.6 and the respondent no.6 is further directed to take
appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law.
Certified copy as per rules.(MISS VANDANA KASREKAR)
                                                                JUDGE




TabishDigitally signed by MOHAMMADTABISH KHANDate: 2018.02.12 17:43:47 +05'30'